Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 &amp; 40 Via. c. 77, during 1959."—[Mr. Vosper.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Robberies

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General how much money has been lost in each of the last three years, respectively, through Post Office robberies; how many robberies have taken place; if he is satisfied that the new steps he is taking to prevent robberies are adequate; if he is satisfied that the punishment which may be imposed upon those caught and convicted is sufficient to deter others; and if he will make a statement.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The amounts lost through robberies at Post Offices were £2,017. £7,290 and £5,421 respectively; and the numbers of robberies were 6, 28 and 17. The numbers of unsuccessful attempts at robbery were 20, 29 and 49. While the last-mentioned figures indicate that we are perhaps having some success in preventing robberies, this is not to say that we are satisfied with our security arrangements. I would assure my hon. Friend that we intend to go on trying to improve them. The question of punishment for offenders who are caught is not one for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the rather alarming figures of the attempts to attack Post Office workers, and thinking

especially of the village and rural postmasters and post-mistresses, may I ask my hon. Friend to contact her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether more severe punishments can be imposed on these men, who have caused a great deal of trouble to people in rural districts?

Miss Pike: The punishment is not a question for us, but we are prepared to do anything which will help in this matter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do the figures given by the hon. Lady include sub-post offices as well as Crown offices? Do they not indicate a rather widespread laxity in at least sub-office areas?

Miss Pike: They relate mostly to sub-post offices, and only two relate to Crown offices.

Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a full statement on the consultations which have taken place between his officers, the British Transport Commission and the City of Stoke-on-Trent over the new Post Office headquarters in the City; what stage the plans have reached; whether it is intended to provide the most modern building and machinery including an underground electronic conveyor; and if the site will be laid out with trees, shrubs, and turf.

Miss Pike: The scheme for a new main sorting office in Stoke-on-Trent has been cleared with the local authority. Close contact has also been maintained with the British Transport Commission, and the plans were referred to them some weeks ago. Building should start about a year from now and be completed two years later. The building will be a modern one. The equipment will not include an underground conveyor, as this would be uneconomic. The site will be laid out attractively, retaining existing natural features wherever possible.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to provide a new modern post office for the increasing Meir area in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, and adequate telephone facilities for the Fenpark Road area of Fenton.

Miss Pike: I am sorry but I should not be justified at present in building a new office to replace the Meir sub-post office which is giving a satisfactory service. I am reconsidering the question of providing a sub-post office in the adjoining Wood Farm estate and I will write to the hon. Member about this as soon a; possible. There are no people waiting for telephone service in the Fenpark Road district. An additional telephone kiosk is to be installed in Vivian Road within the next two months.

Mrs. Slater: May I say how grateful the people of that area will be? Although it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I met the previous Postmaster-General on this subject when my hon. Friend was ill, and at that time we thought that there was no hope at all of achieving what we wanted. The people of this estate will be very grateful for that reply.

Mowmacre Hill, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-Genera l whether, in view of the continuing concern of old-age pensioners and others at the lack of proper facilities for Post Office services at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, and in view of the plans for future building there, which have now been put in hand, he will now provide a sub-post office suitably situated there.

Miss Pike: I understand that the planned building development is not likely to start for some years. I can assure the hon. Member that when the time comes the question of providing a further sub-post office will be considered; but in the meantime I should not be justified in doing as he asks.

Mr. Janner: Could not the hon. Lady reconsider her decision about this not being justified? Does not she agree that if she provided for the minimum needs—that is what it amounts to—of the people at present at Mowmacre Hill, ultimately when the buildings go up the services would be available for the new people as well as for those who are there now? Does not she realise the difficulties?

Miss Pike: I accept the hon. Gentleman's persistence, but I cannot accept his arguments. The land in question will

be lying fallow for about eight years. It is the site of a disused sewage farm, and we cannot expect development on the land for seven or eight years.

Mr. Mason: In view of the many Questions arising in the House about the siting of sub-post offices, would not the hon. Lady consider a review of the arrangements for sitings, especially having in mind the hilly terrain and the situation of the residences of a number of old-age pensioners?

Miss Pike: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. With the ever-increasing changes in our community life, we often find that the siting of post offices is not as good as we would wish. We are keeping this matter and the standards which we employ in deciding whether we need sub-post offices constantly under review.

Post Office Savings Bank (Centenary)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Postmaster-General what steps his Department is taking to commemorate next year the centenary of the Post Office Savings Bank.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): It is certainly my intention that this centenary, which falls in September next year, shall be suitably commemorated; and I will make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In view of the great services which the Post Office Savings Bank has rendered to this country for nearly a hundred years, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a special stamp to mark the occasion and also providing extra facilities for its 22 million depositors?

Mr. Bevins: I will give the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion consideration. In answer to his first suggestion, a commemorative postage stamp is now under way.

Mr. Lipton: Would not the best way of commemoration be to give the loyal depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank a little more interest?

Mr. Bevins: Having regard to certain concessions, they do not do too badly at the moment.

Books of Stamps (Automatic Machines)

Mr. Holland: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will provide more automatic machines selling books of stamps.

Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. My aim is to provide machines selling 2s. 0d, books of stamps at Crown post offices generally. We hope to have a large number in position by the end of this year.

Mr. Holland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that Acton Post Office warmly welcomes the prospect of having one of these machines installed, in the belief that it will ease the burden on the counter staff and will also help to reduce queues? Would she agree that she should be selective about the siting of these machines and that perhaps what is good for Acton is not necessarily good for "Little-Bindingin-the-Marsh"?

Miss Pike: I agree that we have to be very careful about the siting of all our post offices.

Conferences and Exhibitions

Mr. Costain: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements to provide simple postal facilities, on a self-service basis, at conferences, exhibitions, and so on.

Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. Two transportable suites of self-service machines selling stamps, stamp booklets and letter cards are now available for use at conferences and similar events. A posting box is incorporated in each suite. If they prove popular we shall provide more of them.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that her reply will cause a great deal of satisfaction? May we have an assurance that a similar service will be available in the provinces?

Miss Pike: Yes, certainly.

Sub-office, London, S.W.6

Mr. Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will establish a sub-post office at 4, Station Approach, London, S.W.6.

Miss Pike: There are two post offices within half-a-mile of No. 4, Station

Approach and three more within three-quarters of a mile. I am sorry, but I should not be justified in opening yet another office in the area.

Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Lady realise that this is a very populous area and that her reply does not sufficiently consider the very heavy pressure at the Putney High Street office which would be alleviated if this proposed office were established? Facilities in the Putney Bridge area, which are described in a letter to me as being of a good standard, are decidedly inferior to those in the Lower Richmond Road area. May I have an opportunity of discussing this matter further with the hon. Lady or with her right hon. Friend?

Miss Pike: I would welcome a discussion on the matter, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been gone into very fully indeed.

Long-Distance Communications (Space Research)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the steps his Department has taken to study the application of space research for the long-distance telephone system.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office is in regular consultation with other Departments concerned with space research and is participating actively in the work of the International Radio Consultative Committee. My officials have also had exploratory discussions with other Commonwealth telephone authorities and with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company about the possible application of earth satellites to long-distance communications.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of that monumental labour by the Post Office, can the Postmaster-General say what conclusion the Post Office has reached so far?

Mr. Bevins: Only in a very general sense. I am convinced, on the basis of technical advice which I have received, that there is a future in this field, and I believe that technically it is possible; but we have a great deal of further work to do on the financial and other implications.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is not this problem becoming more and more urgent in view of the congestion of the existing cables and the high cost of replacing them with new cables? Would it not be better to make an early decision to go ahead with space satellites for this purpose?

Mr. Bevins: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be no delay in coming to decisions. At the same time, I should like to make it clear that, even if this form of communication should materialise in the relatively near future, it is still the view of all the principal administrations that we should require to maintain submarine communications as well.

Telephone Equipment (Contracts)

Mr. Darling: asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements he makes for an independent costing of contracts given to manufacturers for the supply of telephone equipment.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office employs its own professional accountants and technical costs officers to investigate the books and the methods of production of contractors. We have complete freedom to decide which contractors shall be investigated and the extent of the investigation. We then negotiate prices as closely as possible in accord with the costs of the most efficient producers. The prices so fixed are paid uniformly to all the suppliers.

Mr. Darling: Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that that arrangement works satisfactorily in view of the statement made recently by Mr. Stanley that equipment could have been supplied at lower cost if this manufacturers' ring was not in operation? If Mr. Stanley's statement is correct, does it not seem that the taxpayers have been overpaying for a considerable time and that we might have lost millions through supporting this manufacturers' ring.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Stanley has made a lot of statements in recent weeks, not all of which have been completely accurate. At the moment, I am satisfied that our existing practice is right, that our cost accountants are most careful to ascertain the actual costs of production and that the lowest costs are applied to all Post Office supplies. In regard to the assertion that Continental costs of production

are lower than in this country, I have been at some pains to collate evidence on that and I find that the cost of the French handset is rather more expensive than the corresponding article in this country. The German handset is cheaper than that produced in this country, but I should add, in fairness to the Post Office, that the total cost of the handset and of installation in Germany and in this country are almost identical.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House and say what profit margin is allowed within his costing arrangements with these companies?

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Member would care to put down a Question about that. I should be glad to answer it.

Mail (Collections)

Mr. Cole: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for indicators, similar to those provided on pillar-boxes showing the next collection of mail, to be provided on the outside of all main post offices, so that members of the public will know, especially as regards the later collections of the day, whether they have posted in time for a particular collection.

Miss Pike: We are already providing indicators at some of our Crown post offices and I will certainly look into the possibilities of providing them more widely. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular office or offices at which he would like to see such indicators, I shall be glad to consider what can be done to meet his wishes.

Mr. Cole: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply and for the advancement in this field, may I ask if she is aware that I have no particular post office in mind and ask whether she is further aware that it is most frustrating not to know whether an important letter catches the night post and that it might also at times be useful as the post office would be able to sell a night letter telegram?

Miss Pike: We are always anxious to help our customers as much as possible and I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Counter Duties (Reorganisation)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Postmaster-General at what offices he is experimenting with a reorganisation of counter duties based on counter staff handling all types of business.

Mr. Bevins: Trials at Walsall, Watford and Weston-super-Mare were started earlier this year. They have lately started at a further thirteen offices including Brentwood, Clacton-on-Sea, Folkestone, Neath, Newark, Pontypool, Southall, Weymouth and York. Arrangements are now under way for them to begin at a further eleven offices. I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Worsley: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the reaction of the general public to the new arrangements when using these offices?

Mr. Bevins: So far, the general reaction of the public has been very favourable indeed. I hope that we shall reach final conclusions on this changed method of working by the autumn. I am satisfied that, with the loyal cooperation of the Post Office staffs, we shall be able to make a substantial improvement in Post Office services

Mr. W. R. Williams: Whilst I have no objection whatever to the Post Office experimenting at all times to improve the service, may I ask whether the Postmaster-General is aware that, after a fairly long association with duties of this sort, I am inclined to the opinion that complete non-specialisation will in the long run be a bad thing for the Post Office and for the customer? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions. At the end of the experimental period, will he give serious consideration to the point which I am putting, because I put it in good faith? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman had any firm estimate yet of what would be the additional cost, for instance, in balancing time and so on, if his scheme of complete non-specialisation is introduced?

Mr. Bevins: I cannot give an exact figure of what this change in our method of working will amount to, but I should say off the cuff that it will probably cost at least £¼ million a year. If, however, as I believe, by means of spending this money we can succeed in doing away

with queues in post offices, it will be money well spent. I will certainly take note of the general considerations to which the hon. Member has referred.

Following is the List:

Head Offices

Brentwood.*
Clacton-on-Sea.*
Dorchester.
Folkestone.*
Leamington Spa.
Neath.*
Newark.*
Newry.
Oldham.
Pontypool.*
Southall.*
Stafford.
Stockport.
Weymouth.*
York.*

Branch Offices

Belfast—Donegal Square.
Bristol—Bedminster.*
Glasgow—Charing Cross.
London—South Molton Street.*
Hull—Brazil Street.*
Liverpool—Walton.
Manchester—Hanging Ditch.

Salaried Offices

Newtonards (Belfast).
Jarrow (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).*
* Experiments now in operation.

Telephone Apparatus (Bulk Supply Agreement)

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effect of the recent take-over bid by Pye of the Telephone Manufacturing Company upon the ordering of telephone and telephonic communications equipment by his Department; whether any reduction in prices of telephone instruments can be expected; and whether a fresh agreement will have to be negotiated with the new company concerned.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office does not have a separate agreement with the Telephone Manufacturing Company, which is a party to the bulk supply agreement for the supply of telephone apparatus. The transfer of control of the Telephone Manufacturing Company will not, of itself, require a new agreement, or a change in the system of ordering.
Uniform prices apply to all orders. These prices are fixed from the currency of the agreements as the result of cost


investigation of the companies considered by the Post Office to be the most efficient. It is too early to say whether the change in the control of the Telephone Manufacturing Company will lead to a reduction in prices.

Mr. Mason: On the question of production prices, may I take it from the Minister's reply, and particularly from what he said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), that he has no confidence whatever in the statement of Mr. Stanley that he would be responsible for reducing prices? Is it not a fact that members of this ring are in a privileged position and that only they can enjoy Post Office contracts? How does the Postmaster-General know that we are getting value for money when ordering this telephonic equipment When no other firm is allowed to compete?

Mr. Bevins: The second part of that supplementary question is not quite true. If the Post Office is satisfied that it could profitably use the services of a company outside what the hon. Member calls the ring, it would be possible to order 10 per cont. of our annual requirements from such company or companies. If any of the companies which are party to the bulk supply agreements are able to manufacture equipment, whether telephone, cabling Or anything else, more cheaply than is done at present—that could conceivably happen in the new circumstances—that would lead to a saving all round to the Post Office.

Mr. Mason: How many times has the Postmaster-General contracted out in the past three years while the agreement has been in being?

Mr. Bevins: There was one occasion about twelve months ago when the Post Office invited firms outside the ring to contract for cabling. No tenders were received. At present, we are considering the advisability of going out to tender for another bulk supply.

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider referring to the Monopolies Commission the Temco system of providing telephonic communications equipment to the Post Office.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office has no agreement with Temco as an individual

company. It is one of the eight companies with which the Post Office has a composite agreement for the supply of telephone apparatus. The question of a reference to the Monopolies Commission is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 19th July.

Mr. Mason: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was he who referred that Question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade after it had been addressed to the Postmaster-General? Is not this a monopoly? In view of the pressure from both sides of the House concerning the existence of this ring, which is in a monopoly position, is it not time that we had either a reference to the Public Accounts Committee or an independent investigation by an outside body?

Mr. Bevins: The question which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred to me was a supplementary question as to whether a Government Department was being held to ransom in this matter, and it had nothing to do with a reference to the Monopolies Commission or with making a reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Sir R. Grimston: Is it not a fact, whatever else may be said about this bulk supply agreement, that it has been in force for many years and during the whole time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) was Postmaster-General?

Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true. This agreement has been in force for a period of about thirty years under Governments of varying political complexions, and, what is more, as I said last Wednesday, these arrangements have been vindicated both by the Public Accounts Committee and various other bodies during that time.

Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the matter that the Post Office, having regard to its own experience and the experience of foreign post office companies, has come to the conclusion that competition is a thoroughly bad thing?

Mr. Bevins: That, of course, is precisely where the hon. and learned Gentleman and I differ. I am prepared, as, indeed, are my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to look at these questions on their individual merits, and not to be doctrinaire.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the position applying in the ring that the Standard Telephone Company is doing something in this country which by law it is prevented from doing in the United States and will not the right hon. Gentleman have regard to this fact, that a new agreement has been made within the last three years and that this agreement has never been under consideration by any Committee of this House?

Mr. Bevins: I am not responsible for the laws which are on the statute book in the United States of America. I am concerned with the position in this country.

Former Employees (Employment)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General why the application of an ex-Post Office servant to be allowed to take employment with a non-ring firm was refused, whilst application for permission to join a ring firm was allowed.

Mr. Bevins: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to two separate persons. I am satisfied that to authorise the second person to accept an appointment with the Marconi Group was proper and consistent with the principles which govern these matters. The Post Office has no bulk purchasing agreement with this Group and the specific intention of the appointment is to help in developing the export side of the Group's activities.
I was not responsible for the earlier case, but the circumstances were quite different.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the allegation made by Mr. Stanley in the document he has circulated that the Postmaster-General has given preferential treatment to the employment of an ex-Post Office official by the ring people and that they have excluded or kept out for two years another official who wanted a job with someone outside the ring who wanted to engage in the export

business? Is he really satisfied that there is no basis for the allegation by Mr. Stanley?

Mr. Bevins: I have not, I must say, seen the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, although I have heard of it, but if the suggestion is that the second gentleman referred to in my Answer has been permitted to take up an appointment with a firm or group which is party to a bulk supply agreement with the Post Office, that suggestion is wholly without foundation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Television Link (Northern Ireland-Great Britain)

Mr. Maginnis: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for providing a two-way television link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. I have not been asked to provide a link by the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Maginnis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Northern Ireland is the only region of the United Kingdom which cannot televise programmes in the national network? Is he, further, aware that many first-class cultural and sporting events take place in Northern Ireland and that viewers in Britain would greatly appreciate being able to see them? Is he aware that it is vital to televise programmes from Northern Ireland if we are to play our full part in the progress of television in Great Britain and the Continent of Europe?

Mr. Bevins: I am in no doubt at all about the high cultural value of television programmes in Northern Ireland, but it is the fact that the B.B.C. sets up its own temporary link when it wants to relay programmes back to this country. I have had no request from the I.T.A. for a link back from Northern Ireland to this country.

Television Reception, North Cornwall

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure an improvement in the reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation television programmes in north Cornwall.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. plans to build further low-power television stations in later stages of its satellite station scheme. It has in mind the need for improved reception in parts of North Cornwall.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Fiend give me any indication when these new stations will be built? Is he aware that at the moment reception is quite appalling in many parts of the West Country, particularly north Cornwall, where the programmes are not received at all? Will he also bear in mind that the residents of north Cornwall pay exactly the same licence fee as those elsewhere in the country and should have exactly the same service at as early a date as possible?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware that reception in north Cornwall is not as good as it ought to be, but it is too early yet to give my hon. Friend a definite date when the B.B.C. will move. I will gladly bring my hon. Friend's point of view to its attention.

Reception, Yorkshire

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the television and broadcasting reception over the whole of Yorkshire.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has recently opened an experimental low-power television station at Sheffield and will increase the power later this year. It intends to provide a V.H.F. sound station at Sheffield and a television station at Scarborough. The I.T.A. has it in mind to plan for additional stations but I do not yet know its detailed plans.

Mr. Roberts: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that programmes received in that region are received in a very lukewarm way and that we feel that as a province we are being neglected? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a county extending from the North Sea to within nine miles of the Irish Sea deserves far mire consideration than it is having from the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. Bevins: I have a great affection for Yorkshire and I should like the

British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority to do all they can to help viewers in that county. I am satisfied that both authorities are doing all they possibly can.

Mr. Darling: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this low-power station is in operation in Sheffield? I can assure him that my constituents' reception has not improved yet.

Mr. Bevins: I said that the B.B.C. has recently opened an experimental low-power station which needs higher power. It will get higher power this year.

Television Broadcasts (Influence on Children)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will take steps to encourage research into the impact of television broadcasts on children;
(2) what is the nature of the communications he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority relating to the report of their joint committee on the impact of television on children; and if he will appoint to the Independent Television Authority persons specially qualified to ensure a high standard of television broadcasts seen by children.

Mr. Bevins: I welcome some intelligent research on the influence of television on children, but I do not think it is for me to direct either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to undertake it.
I have received no communication from either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. on the O'Conor Report, though, of course, I have read their observations upon it.
The I.T.A. already has a children's Advisory Committee.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Postmaster-General aware that we have as yet no real means of knowing to what extent children can be harmed by the kind of television programmes criticised by this committee? Should not a lot more research be done on this? Meantime, is it wise to brush aside the strong recommendations of this committee for precautions?

Mr. Bevins: I realise that there are differing views in different parts of the House on this question, but the view of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Independent Television Authority is that they do not believe that the needs of children should be allowed to determine the content of programmes during peak viewing hours. I am bound to say that I personally am in agreement with that view. They also point out that this is largely, though not wholly, a matter of parental control of children in the home. I think it is dreadfully easy to exaggerate the supposedly evil effects of television on children. I myself think that children are very much more intelligent and much wiser than some of us give them credit for. As for research, a good deal of research is going on, and the Granada Organisation is sponsoring research at two provincial universities at the present time.

Mr. John Hall: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been an increasing tendency both in the legitimate theatre and in the cinema to dwell on subjects which have sexual sadism as their theme? Is not this creeping into television entertainment as well? Has he not some responsibility for this? It is not only a question of the effect on children but the effect on viewers as a whole.

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—

Mrs. Slater: Then what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?

Mr. Bevins: —that there has been a tendency in that direction in the cinema and the theatre in recent years, but I do not believe that it has been so extensive on the television—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as my hon. Friend would indicate. But I am perfectly prepared at any time when any Member of this House wishes to complain about any programme which features what my hon. Friend referred to as sadism and sex to make representations to either of the broadcasting authorities.

Mrs. Slater: The right hon. Gentleman may leave it too late.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry out his promise he will have a full-time job of

complaining both to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Is he not satisfied now that the needs of the advertisers are determining the contents of the programmes and that that really has led to this degradation?

Mr. Bevins: I think that that is a very unfair allegation to make against the Independent Television Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is very easy to make loose accusations of this sort, but I am bound to say that my contacts with the Independent Television Authority have convinced me that it is a responsible body trying conscientiously to do a decent job of work.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman read both last week's report and the Nuffield Report which led to it, and, if so, in view of the evident differences of opinion to which he has referred, why does he not positively encourage the research which is demanded in that report?

Mr. Bevins: Because it is not my function to encourage research. That is the job of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, and I am quite convinced that both authorities are responsible bodies which will give due and sufficient weight to those recommendations as they ought.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this at Question Time

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Charges (Larne-Belfast Calls)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General what is the charge for a three-minute telephone call from Larne to Belfast; and if he will reduce this: charge.

Mr. Bevins: The present charge is 1s. 0d. throughout the 24 hours. As from 1st September next, and in accordance with the tariff changes I announced on the 6th July, this charge will be reduced to 9d. for calls made between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and on Sundays.

Mr. Clark: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the slight reduction which he is offering, may I ask him whether he will consider reducing the charge of the calls from Larne to Belfast


to the ordinary 3d. tariff charge? There is a number of places very much further from Belfast than Larne where one can make the ordinary 3d. call, and one can also make the 3d. call over greater distances elsewhere. The high charge of telephone calls is a definite disincentive to businesses opening up in Larne.

Mr. Bevins: I will gladly look at this matter, but, as my hon. Friend knows, I should find it very difficult to meet his point of view without departing from the basis of charging, which applies in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom, on a group basis.

Timed Telephone Calls

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent the system of timed local calls in Bristol and elsewhere has been successful; and what additional revenue has accrued thereby.

Mr. Bevins: I believe that the public are well satisfied with the system. They are making more calls. About three-q carters are costing only 2d. instead of 3d. as previously. Local call revenue has so far remained about the same.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that this system is found by many people to be a rather burdensome imposition, especially when they telephone large organisations, hospitals and so on, and they are kept waiting on the line until the right person is found to produce the required information? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hospitals ask callers to leave their telephone number and then telephone back, so that the Postmaster-General gets paid for two calls?

Mr. Bevins: I should like to think about the point concerning cost to hospitals. On the general question, however, I think that the House would agree that it is wholly a good thing that people who are prepared to make short telephone conversations should get them more cheaply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Canteen, Nicosia (Complaint)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of Slate for Air what action he proposes to take in respect of the complaint of bad food and the conditions in the Royal

Air Force canteen in Nicosia, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The building in question is a temporary one which we hope to give up early next year. It is not ideal, but I cannot agree that the food or the conditions are bad. I am writing to the hon. Member about the detailed complaints in his letter.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for part of what he said about building, may I ask whether he can say why Service men in Cyprus continue to be served week after week with dehydrated potatoes that are most unpalatable?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter trespassing on the next Question.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I am discussing Question No. 23—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I was not wrong in thinking that what the hon. Member appeared to be asking seemed to be trespassing on the next Question. I did not have much time to think about it, but if it is so, his supplementary question is out of order.

Mr. Dodds: I should like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my letter to the Secretary of State for Air I particularly complained about the serving up of powdered "Pom" week after week.

Mr. Speaker: However delightful is the phraseology in the hon. Member's letter, his supplementary question is out of order because it anticipates the next Question.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I am asking about food. If it is necessary in future that I stipulate all the items that I want to raise on the Order Paper may I take that I shall be permitted to do so? As I have said, I am talking about food and, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, powdered "Pom" is looked upon as food.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot adapt the rules of the House to each individual Member. Mr. Gresham Cooke.

Potato Powder

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air why National


Service men in the Royal Air Force are still fed on reconstituted potato powder instead of natural potatoes.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Potato powder is included in our emergency reserve stocks. Its storage life is limited, and in order to turn it over we issue it occasionally to all ranks—usually twice a month.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents—I do not know about those in Erith and Crayford—are very fed up with this constant issue of reconstituted "Pom"? Will he give a categorical assurance that the R.A.F. is not using up war-time stocks of
"Pom"?

Mr. Taylor: The warranty for the life of this product is for two to three years. Therefore, I think that I can say categorically that we are not using up war-time stocks.

Mrs. Slater: Why give it to the men?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made a distinction between National Service men and others. I can assure him that there is no such distinction.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why in Cyprus week after week the men are getting powdered "Pom" which is most unpalatable? Is he aware that from both sides of the House yesterday there were bitter complaints about the dumping of potatoes from overseas into this country? Why cannot we divert them to Cyprus? I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand the revulsion felt by troops in Cyprus. Will he speak to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and ask him to arrange for some of this powdered "Pom" to be served for several weeks in the Members' Dining Room?

Mr. Taylor: I can only say that the menus and messing generally in the R.A.F. are very satisfactory. I commend all hon. Members in all parts of the House to visit R.A.F. stations to see what is being served. As for Cyprus, in twenty-six days in June there was a choice for the midday meal between hot and cold dishes. "Pom" is used on two days only a month, as I said in my original reply.

Mr. de Freitas: Is this entirely an Air Force matter or do the "Pommies" get powdered "Pom" too?

Mr. Taylor: We get the "Pommies" from the War Office.

Brize Norton Air Base (Security Measures)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the demonstration outside the Brize Norton air base on 16th July, what requests he has received from the United States Air Force authorities for additional security measures there.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the American authorities are taking the law into their own hands, notably by photographing and cataloguing the faces of each of the hundred marchers, who were committing no offence? Does the hon. Gentleman approve of that and, if not, will he ask the American authorities to destroy the film, as certain British chief constables have been induced to do in similar circumstances?

Mr. Taylor: There is nothing in the Question about photographs. I must look into that, but the question of security generally at R.A.F. stations used by the Americans in this country is a matter for the American Air Force authorities.

Free Church Chaplain, Lindholme

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement about the dismissal of the Reverend William Raine, who was until recently Free Church chaplain at Lindholme Royal Air Force Station.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Mr. Raine courteously told our Principal Free Church Chaplain last month of his intention to take part in a march of protest against nuclear weapons. In the course of very friendly correspondence and discussion he accepted the view that this did not fit in well with his official ministry at R.A.F., Lindholme, and he therefore agreed to resign. We are most grateful for the services he has given.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does this mean that henceforth only those padres who speak the Gospel according to the Establishment will be acceptable? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any member of the Service who might hold views similar to those of this padre will also be dealt with in the same way? Quite a number would like to feel that this was a way of relieving themselves of their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that henceforth the Minister will write the sermons to ensure that they are according to what the Establishment would like?

Mr. Taylor: It means simply that we can hardly have as a chaplain on a bomber station of the R.A.F. someone who publicly advocates the view that Bomber Command's main task is morally wrong. The incompatibility appears to me obvious, and I gather that Mr. Raine is of the same opinion.

Jet Aircraft, Seaton Carew (Night Flying)

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for Air what night flying by jet aircraft has taken place in the Seaton Carew area of West Hartlepool in recent weeks.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Fighter aircraft from R.A.F, Middleton-St.-George have carried out night flying as part of their normal training programme. Aircraft approaching to land under ground control necessarily pass close to Seaton Carew.

Commander Kerans: Can my hon. Friend say at what height these aircraft cross the coast and what instructions are given to pilots to avoid residential and built-up areas?

Mr. Taylor: Aircraft landing under ground control approach conditions pass close to Seaton Carew at heights varying between 2,500 and 7,500 feet dependent upon conditions.

TSR2 Aircraft

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has been authorised to go ahead with the production of the TSR2 aircraft, or if he proposes to accept the NA39 aircraft in stead.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: As the hon. Member was told on 13th July, there has been no change in the status of this aircraft. Development is proceeding as planned, but the stage has not yet been reached at which a production order is needed. On the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend explained on 28th January, 1959, in answer to supplementary questions, the reasons why we were developing a new aircraft rather than adapting the NA39.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been going on for a very long time and speculation is rife about the Government's real intentions? Can the hon. Gentleman say when some clear decision will be taken? If a decision is taken that the TSR2 will go into production for the R.A.F., can he say what may happen to the NA39?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member and the House know that the NA39 is a fully developed aircraft now and is in production. When the matter of the TSR2 was being examined we looked at the possibility of having a stretched version of the NA39 instead of ordering an entirely new aircraft to meet the new operational requirements. The question of time-scale also arose. There has been no significant change in any of the operational factors which led the Government to the decision to proceed with the TSR2.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the Canberra is already obsolete for low-level flying and that the NA39 adapted to ground take-off could be in service in at least half the time that it would take to produce a new aircraft?

Mr. Taylor: The Canberra will remain effective for a number of years. To replace it we need an aircraft with a greatly improved performance capable of penetrating strong defences during a long operational life. Developing it should not take much longer than adapting the NA39 to overland operations in all weathers. To develop a new aircraft will be more economical, because the aircraft will last longer.

United States Aircraft (Bases, United Kingdom)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will


now state the conditions under which United States aircraft operate from Royal Air Force airfields.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said about consultations on the use of bases in this country by United States military aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that he would consult the President of the United States? Is it true, as reported in the Press today, that the consultations began only yesterday?

Mr. Taylor: I have not seen the report in the Press to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I repeat that consultations have commenced and are going on. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a Question to the Prime Minister tomorrow, and it is not my intention to anticipate that.

R.A.F. Station, Finningley (Incident)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air in what circumstances an American schoolmaster was recently removed by force from the married quarters attached to the Royal Air Force Station, Finningley.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Air why William Fitzgibbon was dragged along the ground by Royal Air Force police at Finningley on 24th July; why he and Ronald Taylor were photographed by Royal Air Force police; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Mr. Fitzgibbon and Mr. Taylor, together with several others, entered Air Ministry property at Finningley on Sunday last with the declared intention of preparing the way for a demonstration to take place next week-end. They were asked to leave, but Mr. Fitzgibbon persisted in refusing to do so. After ample warning he was removed by R.A.F. police as a trespasser. No unnecessary force was used. Two photographs were taken before any incident occurred, simply as a precaution in case anything serious developed which might need further investigation.

Mr. de Freitas: Since tradesmen and political parties are allowed to deliver literature to these married quarters, is it not very stupid of the Royal Air Force to go out of its way to make a martyr of this man?

Mr. Taylor: This was not normal commercial or political canvassing. It was action following up a threat of demonstrations of a type which have in the past taken the form of serious interference with work at Royal Air Force stations. The station commander felt bound to try to make the position clear before matters could possibly get out of hand.

Mr. Allaun: But is it not seriously wrong that a man offering no violent resistance should be dragged by his feet along rough asphalt, during which process his shirt slipped over his shoulders so that his back was cut, requiring hospital treatment? Even if his removal were justified—which I question—why could he not have been carried?

Mr. Taylor: He was being carried but he wriggled.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A.30 Road

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving A.30 between Basingstoke golf course and the junction with A.33, such as by making the road a dual carriageway.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We are planning to provide dual carriageways but this will not be possible for some time yet, except on a short section near Dummer where we hope to authorise the work within the next two or three years. Meanwhile the existing carriageway is being realigned and widened.

Mr. Freeth: While I thank my hon. Friend for that hope for the next two or three years, may I ask him to say why it was not possible, when the present alterations were being carried out, to make the relevant section into a dual carriageway at the same time?

Mr. Hay: It is not quite as easy as my hon. Friend thinks. Consideration was certainly given to that, but I am afraid that it was not practicable at that time.

Andover By-pass

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport 'when he hopes to begin and to complete the Andover by-pass.

Mr. Hay: Preparatory work on this scheme is still at an early stage and it is too soon yet to say when it will be possible to start construction. Thereafter the work should take between eighteen months and two years to complete.

Mr. Freeth: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Ministry asked the county council to have contract drawings ready for a by-pass to be finished in December, 1961, and that plans for the purpose of acquiring the land were submitted to his Ministry on 11th March this year? Would it not be a good thing to press on with this? Why is there delay?

Mr. Hay: The position is not quite as my hon. Friend says. I understand that recommendations from the county council about the proposed route have only just reached our divisional road engineer. They will be submitted to our headquarters. If they are satisfactory, we can publish a draft order, so showing the effect of the proposed route on side roads as quickly as we can.

Witham and Kelvedon By-passes

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport when he will be able to announce details of the line of the Witham and the Kelvedon by-passes.

Mr. J. Hay: The lines of the Kelvedon and Witham By-passes were established by Orders made in 1939 and 1958 respectively. A draft Order to provide for a short extension of Witham By-pass was published on 17th June last.

Mr. Harrison: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but when will something be done about building the road?

Mr. Hay: That was not the question I was originally asked. I was asked when I would be able to announce details of the line. We have had one of the lines since 1939.

Mr. John Hall: Can my hon. Friend say whether the delay in starting these by-passes, the Andover By-pass and, even more important, the High Wycombe By-pass, is due to the fact that the cost of existing schemes has proved so much greater than the estimates that there is no money left to start new schemes?

Mr. Hay: No, it is not. So many people want to do so much work in so short a time that we have not the money to do all of it at once.

Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the authorisations this year are lower than in previous years and that we are told that there is to be a standstill in Government expenditure, is the programme likely to be delayed still further?

Mr. Hay: I expect that the hon. Member will wish to elaborate that point in the debate which we are to have tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

British Railways (Regions)

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to take the necessary steps to give a greater degree of independence to the regions of British Railways.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Holland: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that many of the older railwaymen who form the hard core of the service still think with pride of, for example, a region's safety record or good timekeeping record? Does he not think that we should do what we can to bring about a revival of this pride throughout the service by enabling regions to have a greater degree of independence?

Mr. Marples: A special advisory group is taking evidence from all classes of people, and I am sure that it will bear this in mind before it makes its recommendations in this respect.

Mr. Benn: As a Select Committee of the House has made a very thorough investigation of the railways and has presented a Report on the matter, will


the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no action will be taken following the Stedeford Committee's recommendations until the House has had an opportunity to debate his own proposals in a White Paper that we can put side by side with the Select Committee's Report?

Mr. Marples: Decentralisation or any alteration of the areas would require legislation, and so discussions would be automatic.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in addition to his plans for nuclear tankers of 65,000 tons, he will consider inviting tenders for smaller nuclear ships, with particular reference to ships in the fishing industry, including factory ships and trawlers.

Mr. Marples: It is too early to consider this step for any but large ships.

Mr. Hughes: If there are any scientfiic objections to the application of nuclear energy to small ships and fishing trawlers, which represent one of Britain's major industries, will the right hon. Gentleman specify what they are? Does he agree that it is wrong to discriminate against the fishing industry in this way, and will he give his whole attention to this very important suggestion?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his important suggestion. I am bound to say that if nuclear power is to be applied successfully to merchant ships, it must be competitive in order to survive. Therefore, in the early stages, technically it will be necessary to apply it to large ships, and we will see what happens after that.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport how soon after the closing date for the receipt of tenders for nuclear reactors he expects to place an order for a nuclear-propelled merchant ship; and to what degree the Royal Navy will assist in her development.

Mr. Marples: The Government will not be in a position to decide whether a nuclear-powered merchant ship should be

built until the tenders have been assessed. This will be a highly complex task, and is bound to take several months.
As regards the second part of the Question, my Department is working in close touch with the Admiralty.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety felt about the time the Galbraith Committee took to discuss the question? Also, did it not report some nine months ago? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give his personal attention to this matter in order to try to get a nuclear-propelled merchant ship at sea as soon as possible?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend's supplementary question seems to me a little inconsistent. The Galbraith Committee recommended precisely the course of action which the Government have taken in order to get competitive tenders. As soon as the tenders are received, they will be carefully examined in detail.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this country is falling behind West Germany in respect of marine nuclear propulsion? Is not this one of the ways in which British shipbuilding could catch up again with our nuclear "know-how" applied to ship construction?

Mr. Marples: That is exactly what we are trying to do. As soon as the tenders are received, which will be at the end of the month, they will be examined most carefully.

Future

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his discussions with the shipbuilding industry about its future.

Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to my Answer of 20th June to the hon. Member.

Mr. Albu: While I recognise that many of the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry are not of its own creation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen some very serious criticisms made about the industry in a series of articles in Lloyd's List during March and April? Do not those articles require a serious reply or some action from him?

Mr. Marples: I have not seen the articles but will look at them and write to the hon. Gentleman. A sub-committee is considering shipbuilding, and I understand that the D.S.I.R. will be co-opted to it at some stage of the discussion so that the scientific and research aspect will not be neglected.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limits)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now review the speed limit of 30 miles per hour still applicable to unladen light goods and pick-up type light vehicles.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now consider raising the speed limit for cars towing light trailers.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce his decision or these and other applications for variation of the speed limits applicable to certain classes of commercial vehicles.

Mr. Mathew: Does my hon. Friend really suggest that the difficulty that the police have when contemplating a prosecution in establishing whether a vehicles loaded or not at the time outweighs the widespread inconvenience, irritation and nuisance of this rule?

Mr. Hay: The matter was gone into very carefully last year. I have recently been looking into it myself. The position is by no means as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. One of the main difficulties we had was that, with regard to goods vehicles in particular, the representatives of the trade union movement were very much against any change. On a matter of this kind we have to move with general agreement if we can get it, and that is what we are sec king.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Minister of Transport a year ago gave an indication that he would consider this favourably, and that it has taken a year to say that nothing has happened? Can we be doing something, particularly with regard to light trailers?

Mr. Hay: The light trailer situation is a little different from the one dealt within the last Question. It is not easy to discriminate between various types of trailers drawn by private cars—ranging from small trailers carrying, perhaps, a dinghy up to the very large caravans. We are watching the whole position to see whether there is anything we can do about it.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS AND BRITISH-PROTECTED PERSONS)

Mr. Callaghan: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what action he is taking to ensure the safety of British subjects and British-protected subjects in Southern Rhodesia.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Responsibility for ensuring the safety of British subjects and British-protected persons in Southern Rhodesia is the responsibility of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
As I said in the debate earlier today, I am sure that the Government of Southern Rhodesia will have the support of all responsible people in the task of bringing about an end of violence and the restoration of normal peaceful conditions.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Southern Rhodesian Government do not have the support of many of their own people in maintaining law and order? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he, too, has a responsibility in this matter? Can he confirm that after forty years of self-government there are still no African members of the Legislature and that hardly any Africans have a vote? Will he represent, through the High Commissioner, to the Government of Southern Rhodesia that their action in arresting reasonable Africans who are demanding elementary political rights is provocative, is stirring up trouble, and is not calculated to stop it?

Mr. Alport: That supplementary question goes far beyond the terms of the hon. Member's original Question. But this might be an opportunity of reminding him, as he was not present during


the debate earlier today, that the franchise upon which the present Government of Southern Rhodesia are elected is a franchise which was brought in during the Premiership of Mr. Garfield Todd, and was supported by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as being an example of the most liberal form of franchise in contradistinction to the federal form of franchise.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that history flows on, and that what may have been appropriate five or six years ago in the context of Africa at that time is not appropriate today? Will he please note that he still has a responsibility for the Colony of Southern Rhodesia, and that, therefore, it is for him and for Her Majesty's Government to make clear to the Government of Southern Rhodesia whether they believe that the policy which is being followed there is likely to promote law and order, or is likely to discourage it?
Will he also take note that many hon. Members on this side of the House as well as this—for I have read the debate today, even though I was not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members opposite do not realise that there is a typed copy of the debate in the Library of the House. They might care to consult it. I have read every word of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman, and it is quite clear that he still does not understand, or, at any rate, is not prepared to stand up to his responsibilities in this matter by telling the Southern Rhodesian Government that they are responsible for provoking these breaches of law and order if they arrest peaceably-minded Africans who are doing no more than asking for their elementary civil rights.

Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the report of the debate which we had earlier today he will know that, at some length, I dealt with the limitations of the responsibilities of the United Kingdom in Southern Rhodesia in accordance with the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament at the time of the passing of the Act providing for Southern Rhodesia's Constitution. It is true that time flows on and that clocks cannot be turned back, but when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are

pressing us sometimes about Southern Rhodesia, that is a point that they should bear in mind.

Mr. Grimond: While it may be true that the Government's responsibilities in Southern Rhodesia are limited, the Minister has expressed, on behalf of the House, the hope that the Southern Rhodesian Government will be able rapidly to restore order, and we all agree. But if Her Majesty's Government are to express that hope, would it not be proper to make it clear that the majority of this House believes that constitutional progress in Southern Rhodesia would make the restoration of order a great deal easier?

Mr. Alport: The question of constitutional discussions was also included in our debate today, and reference has been made to it on previous occasions. I cannot go further than I went earlier today. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to study the report of the debate and then, in due course, we could carry the matter further.

MALTA (CONSTITUTION)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): As I have repeatedly made clear, Her Majesty's Government are anxious to restore representative government in Malta. During the fifteen months that the present Constitution has been in operation, important progress has been made in diversifying the economy, but it was never intended that this Constitution should remain in force any longer than was necessary. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has now come to work out a new Constitution under which elections may be held as soon as it has been introduced.
Last December, I myself visited Malta, and during his recent visit my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has had valuable informal consultations with the representatives of a wide range of Maltese opinion and many professional associations and interests on how to restore representative government while, at the same time, not abandoning our responsibilities to the people of Malta
Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the quickest and


most satisfactory way of moving to early elections lies in the appointment of a small constitutional Commission, including a member from another Commonwealth country, whose task will be to formulate detailed constitutional proposals, after due consultation with representatives of the Maltese people and local interests. The method of consultation will be for the Corn-mission itself to decide.
The Commission will have to take account of Her Majesty's Government's intention that the Maltese people should be given the widest measure of self-government consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for defence and foreign affairs and their undertakings in respect of the public service, the police and human rights generally. Within this framework, the Commission will be free to make such recommendations as it sees fit.
I am glad to be able to announce that Sit Hilary Blood has accepted appointment as Chairman of the Commission, and that Sir Alfred Roberts has agreed to serve as a member. As I have said, I also hope to add a member from another Commonwealth country.
The Commission will go out to Malta as soon as possible. When its report has been received Her Majesty's Government intend that elections shall be held on the basis of a new Constitution, in the drawing up of which the people of Malta, the Commission and the United Kingdom Government will all have played their part.

Mr. Callaghan: We all welcome the attempt by the Colonial Secretary to break the deadlock in Malta, but may I ask him two questions? First, why is it that the directive which is being given to the Commission is so much narrower than that given in respect of the island of Singapore, when, although the Government reserved defence matters, they did not reserve to themselves foreign affairs, the maintenance of law and order, the public services, or human rights generally? Can the Colonial Secretary tell us why he feels it necessary, in the case of an island similar to Singapore, to keep this close control?
Secondly, what reply is he to make to the first question which he is bound to

be asked—on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the demand of a large section of the Maltese people for what is called self-determination, that is, the right to determine their own future, whether they stay in or go out of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Macleod: In a sense, the two questions are one. The Round Table Conference, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, came to the conclusion that the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in relation to defence and foreign affairs should broadly follow the lines of my statement today. With respect, I do not think that anything has changed from that. There is a difference with the other pledges. The reason is that my predecessor gave pledges in relation to individual members of the police and public service, in view of what had happened in Malta and the personal threats which had been made about them. I intend to fulfil those pledges to the full.
On Malta's long-term future, I should make it clear that what I am suggesting is what I believe to be the quickest way forward. Frankly, I believe that it is a better way than having conferences, in view of the history of conferences about Malta over the last few years. I believe that the quickest way forward is the step now in contemplation. I should make it clear that I am not saying "never" and not saying "always" in relation to what I may call the far future. I believe that this is the right step to take now in this stage in Malta's development.

Mr. Callaghan: While we recognise that the Government have at least learned that it is no good using the word "never," does the Colonial Secretary also appreciate that the people of Malta will want to have some idea of the proposed ultimate goal of this very limited form of self-government which he intends to ask the Commission to propose? Will he carefully consider, before the Commission starts work, making clear Her Majesty's Government's view about the issue of self-determination? I do not wish to prophesy gloom, but I believe that if he does not do so, he will never hold the elections which he wants and which we all want so that there shall be constitutional progress.

Mr. Macleod: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of the future for Malta. My statement is quite clear and speaks of
the widest measure of self-government consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for defence and foreign affairs…
As I have pointed out, that is precisely in line with the earlier recommendations of the Round Table Conference.
I have carefully considered how the people of Malta can be consulted. It could be done by having a conference, but I have rejected that for the reason that at the last conference which we had for Malta it was impossible even to get the political parties into the same room, and I think that the position might be the same today. Therefore, I have left that out. I do not wish, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants me to, to impose a constitution. I have given much thought to the possibility of convening a national assembly, which has happened twice in the history of Malta since the First World War, but that seemed to me to be an entirely unwieldy body.
Therefore, I decided on a Commission of three with someone like Sir Hilary Blood, who has, perhaps, more experience than anyone else in the country of this sort of work, and a well-known statesman of world rank in trade union affairs, like Sir Alfred Roberts, and a third member coming from another Commonwealth country, who, I think, will be an important addition to the strength. Having such a body in Malta talking to the Maltese people is the best way to consult them about their future.

Mr. Wall: While I welcome the proposal, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell the House when he expects to receive the report of the Commission, so that a general election may take place in Malta?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot tie the Commission to particular times, but I expect to have its report at, say, the end of the year, and that elections will then be held in the first half of 1961.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I welcome the new initiative in Malta and note the Secretary of State's reference to the Round Table Conference, on which it was my privilege to serve with several of my

colleagues. While taking the view about the limitations on the form of defence, and so on, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and recognising the Maltese people's desire to have a form of political independence which had some reality, we were driven to the conclusion, agreed by a large majority, that the one way of satisfying both military responsibilities and the desires of the Maltese people for real independence was by a proposal for what we called integration.
Are we now to understand that, if the Commission concludes that the desire of the Maltese people for independence is to be satisfied beyond mere self-government, any further consideration of integration will be rejected and that the only alternative will be that some day Malta will become completely independent?
In considering the Constitution, are we to understand that the Commission will at least begin with the assumption that there will be adult suffrage?

Mr. Macleod: I was not a member of the Round Table Conference and I know only what I have read about it. Integration is not what might be called above the surface in Maltese political thought. I always thought that it was an imaginative idea and what I have said in no way rules out the Commission's consideration of the concept of integration, if it so wishes. Questions of suffrage are for the Commission, but I have no doubt that it will follow the long-established traditional practice of Malta in this matter.

Sir P. Agnew: While I believe that within the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend has announced there is ample provision for a wide restoration of self-government in Malta, can he say whether he envisages that the Commission, while it will regulate its own procedure, of course, will visit Malta to take evidence?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, certainly it will and, I would have thought, more than once.

Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "the widest measure of self-government" consistent with this, that and the other, especially defence—which somewhat recalls what was being said about Cyprus six years ago—and when he also talks about human rights, does he accept explicitly


that one of those human rights is self-determination and does he accept the proposition that self-determination is applicable to the Maltese people?

Mr. Macleod: I made that position clear earlier. There is a verse in a hymn which says:
…I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me.
I am announcing this step and I am making no reservations or prophecies about the future after that.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that after the failure of integration it is quite clear that the mass of the majority of the people in Malta, as expressed in the Labour Party, which was the Government of Malta, will now be satisfied with nothing less than independence, and that unless the terms of the Commission are such that they include a consideration of independence, it will be very unlikely that that party will give evidence to the Commission?

Mr. Macleod: There is more than one opinion in Malta, and if the hon. Member has followed Maltese politics lately he will conclude that there is more than one opinion even inside the Maltese Labour Party.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PAPERS

Mr. Speaker: I have an announcement to make to the House. The House will recall proposals that we should improve our Papers dealing with the daily business of the House. We have prepared a new set of Papers which we have been able to submit to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports for its consideration and report to me. I should like to express my gratitude on behalf of the House and on my own behalf to the Committee for the great help it has given to me.
I have adopted, with some trifling modifications, all the Committee's suggestions. I will not detain the House now by attempting to describe the new Papers. They will be available to the House in their new form from the beginning of the new Session, expected to be on 1st November next, and I hope that hon. Members will find them to be an acceptable improvement on what we have now.

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered. [Mr. H. Brooke.]

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I rise to oppose the Motion which has been moved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The way in which we are being asked to deal with constitutional processes this afternoon is reducing the relationship between the two Houses—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please be a little quieter as they leave the Chamber.

Mr. Ede: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the way in which we are being asked to deal with constitutional processes this afternoon is reducing the relationship between the two Houses to something which involves us in proceedings here which can have no effect if we wish to express our opinion as a House. We are to be asked today to consider Lords Amendments to four Bills. A similar protest could be made on each of the Motions, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered", but I am an old enough Member of the House to realise that that would not greatly advance the case that I am putting now.
I raise the matter, therefore, mainly as a question of principle, whether, on the last day but two of the regular sittings of the House before an Adjournment for three months, it is right to bring before us four sets of Lords Amendments to Government Bills, and to have on the Order Paper, also the question of consideration of Lords Amendments to three Private Members' Bills in which, although the Government have not formally adopted and starred them on the Order Paper, I understand they have some interest, and have been helpful, at any rate, to the hon. Members promoting the Bills during their progress through the House.
When the Motion is accepted, as I have no doubt it will be because of the


Government's majority and in spite of what the arguments against it may be, we shall then proceed to consider the Lords Amendments to each of these Bills. Presumably, we are still a free enough House to be able, if a majority suddenly bursts all the shackles that have bound us during the past Session, to decide that we will reject one of the Lords Amendments, and, when the Question is put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment" to vote it down. In addition, we might even, although I am sure that the Treasury Bench would regard that as an extreme example of recklessness, amend one of the Lords Amendments.
On the last Government Bill which we are to consider I have been reckless enough to put down an Amendment. I do not intend to enter into the merits of it now. During the early hours of tomorrow morning I might get an opportunity of doing that, but I should like to read to the House a paragraph from a letter which has been written to me by the Minister, who, I understand, will be in charge of that Bill. It says:
We shall be somewhat embarrassed by the time factor, as I think you will understand.
Ministers always put it in that patronising way, as if one has just about enough intelligence to realise what they say although one may not have sufficient intelligence to be able adequately to reply to it.
If we either reject or amend one of these Lords Amendments, the procedure then is that a committee is appointed, consisting of hon. Members of both sides of the House. They meet in a little room behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, and assign a reason for taking this view of the efforts of another place. Negotiations then go on, and an effort is made to reach some accommodation which will enable the Bill to be passed.
I am sure that any Minister who replies to me will say that the Patronage Secretary will be able to assure him that it does not matter; this will all go through because we have decided what we are going to do on the Lords Amendments. That will happen, and, therefore, this is all theory.
The power of the House to dissent from the views of another place, and to amend its views, is part of the heritage we have, and we ought not to acquiesce in this

kind of procedure on the last working day of the Session for this purpose because of the agenda before us. There was a week at Christmas which might have been devoted to the business of the House. That might have enabled some of these Measures to be brought before us at an earlier date, even with Lords Amendments.
It is quite evident that the Government have made up their mind, and I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest that we should come back on Monday to deal with the matter. I have an engagement at Epsom Downs on Monday which I intend to fulfil, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will also be seeking rest and refreshment in less salubrious places.

Mr. Ellis Smith: More salubrious places.

Mr. Ede: They might possibly be more profitable, but not more salubrious. Hon. Members have made their arrangements for next Monday, and, therefore, I protest, and I hope that I protest on behalf of all the right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on behalf of any hon. Gentlemen opposite who still retain a slight respect for the British Constitution which, we understand, it is their special delight to preserve and admire, at this way of treating the House of Commons.
I suggest that the Patronage Secretary should endeavour to give us an assurance about future Sessions while he retains that position. Of course, we do not know whether he, also, is to be moved or transferred, or given a governorship like our former right hon. Friend, Mr. Buchan-Hepburn. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is indicating that he is not being moved, and I thank him for that assurance. We know that too frequent a change of Chief Whip makes the work of members of the Opposition somewhat hard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is extremely agreeable, but it is a long way from the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered".

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Chief Whip will be able, in future Sessions, to arrange that on the last working day of the Session for this purpose we are not


confronted with four, or possibly seven, sets of Lords Amendments to consider. It would not make for the smooth and agreeable working of the House if such a situation arose, because he could not expect on a future occasion that one would merely be content with making a protest against the procedure.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): At all costs we must enable the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to get to Epsom Downs on Monday. I hope that we shall also use our best endeavours to enable him to move his Amendment to the Betting and Gaming Bill today and not tomorrow, so to speak.
I agree that it would be undemocratic if we were to assume in advance that everything will go smoothly and that there will be no contretemps and no difficulties during the day. The right hon. Gentleman realises that I am responsible for only the first of these Bills which, I am glad to say, has gone through to this stage with a degree of unanimity which I cannot remember with any similar Bill. As no Amendments have been put down to it by the Opposition, I trust that I shall not be thought by him to be rendering the business of the House more awkward and more impracticable.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not arrange the business of the House. This business was announced last Thursday and, as far as I can recollect, no protest was made at that time. It has been made clear, too, that we do not seek to take tonight the Private Member's Bill and certain other Government Bills on the Order Paper; they will be held over until October.
The right hon. Gentleman asked the Government to take into consideration what might happen in future Sessions, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that we have first to finish this Session. This is not the last working day before the Recess, and certainly not the last working day of this Session. In view of the fact that until the right hon. Gentleman rose and exercised his democratic right there had not been any protest against these four Bills being put down for today, I hope that he will agree

that we should seek to make such progress as we can with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF USE OF LAND AS CARAVAN SITE WITHOUT SITE LICENCE.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 2, line 11, leave out "purpose" and insert "purposes".

Clause 3.—(ISSUE OF SITE LICENCES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In line 32, leave out from "order" to end of line 35.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might also be convenient to discuss at the same time, three consequential Amendments, one in page 9 and the other two in page 10.
These Amendments deal with short-term licences for caravan sites which have short-term planning permission. Up to now we have always taken the view, unanimously, that site licences should not be issued for only a limited period, but in our previous discussions we did not take into account the fact that there may be occasions, such as agricultural fairs, which involve only the licensing of a caravan site for a very limited period. It would be absurd to exclude them from a site licence, because we have rightly decided, in general, that for normal purposes a site licence shall have no limit.
The Amendments provide that instead of excluding from the site licensing powers of the local authority under Clause 3 all caravan sites which have planning permission which will cease to exist within six months of the application for a site licence, that exclusion shall not appear in Clause 3 but shall be reproduced separately in a separate Clause which is to be moved as a new Clause. This will permit local authorities to grant a site licence where planning permission has been given for a temporary use for a caravan site, while


leaving unaffected the last sentence of Clause 4 (1), which says that
a site licence shall not be issued for a limited period only".
We reproduce the exclusion of a site licence for a site which has planning permission for less than six months in the new Clause, in respect of existing sites.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary has almost persuaded me that this Amendment is necessary, but I still have a marginal doubt about it. As he explained it, the argument for the Amendment is that a licence might be required for a purely temporary caravan site needing only a very short-term planning permission.
It was my impression that we had covered all such cases as he visualised when we debated the Schedule in Committee and on Report. It seemed to me that we dealt exhaustively with all this kind of exemption in the Schedule, particularly in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 12. We tried to cover all these short-term needs, such as agricultural shows. It was my impression that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Schedule in Committee, he quoted an agricultural show as an example which might be covered in the Schedule under the five-day rule.
This Amendment seems to broaden the field considerably, certainly far more than we had intended in Committee, and I should like a further explanation. I do not think that the example of an agricultural show is sufficient. Does the Minister visualise that it is not covered by the Schedule as it stands?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is quite right in drawing attention to the exemptions under the Schedule. My hon. Friend made it plain that if there is a project requiring perhaps more than five days there is no reason why planning permission should not be sought. The hon. Member will notice that exempted organisations have to have as part of their objective the promotion of recreational activities, and it is conceivable that there could be a need for a caravan site for longer than five days or for an organisation which is not specifically recreational, and which might, therefore, successfully seek planning permission for

a very short period. In all fairness, we must make provision for a site licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(DURATION OF SITE LICENCES, AND POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ATTACH CONDITIONS THERETO.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, divide Clause 4 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) and (2); and the second to consist of subsections (3) to (7) inclusive.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Clause deals with two quite distinct subjects. The first two subsections deal with the duration of site licences and the other subsections deal with conditions which might be attached to site licences. It would make for clearer presentation if the Clause were accordingly divided into two separate Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 40. after "or" insert
subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a paving Amendment for the next Amendment, to page 4, line 16, to insert a new subsection, and perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the two together.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee may recollect that there was some discussion as to whether the Bill, as worded, would empower local authorities, in the conditions attached to a site licence, to control the standards of construction of caravans. That was never the intention, and I think that it must be plain to everybody that that is a matter which can only be dealt with satisfactorily on a national basis. Indeed, I am aware that it is now being examined by the British Standards Institution. These two Amendments will put beyond doubt that the authorities will have no power to control standards of construction by licence conditions.

Mr. C. Hughes: As the Minister has said, there was a good deal of discussion on this point in Committee and on Report, and we were all agreed at the time


that local authorities should have the power to exclude certain types of vehicles and structures. I think that the Minister himself mentioned old bus bodies, if I recollect rightly. I take it that now, notwithstanding this Amendment, that right is still vested under this Bill in the local authorities.
A further point is that the Minister has just said that the British Standards Institution is giving the matter its attention on a national level. Can we take it now that the Minister is keeping in touch with the Institution? I do not think that we should cut the local authorities out and leave the whole matter in the air. The House would like to be assured that the Minister is keeping in constant touch with the Institution so that we can have a national standard published as soon as possible.

Mr. James Dempsey: Listening to the reply of the Minister in support of this Amendment, I wondered just what is to happen in regard to the construction of vehicles known as caravans until such time as we have some national standard introduced to control the construction of caravans. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there is a tremendous development at present both of caravans and of caravan sites. Indeed, in my own part of Scotland, I understand that the authorities have been dealing with ten times as many applications for caravan approvals in the past year as have been dealt with since the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which is an indication of the extent of developments of this type.
If we do not have any control at all of the materials to be used in the construction of caravans, how will it be possible for a planning authority, for instance, to protect the neighbourhood by ensuring that, before planning permission is granted, the caravans concerned come up to the standard of an acceptable modern design? As I see it, from the terms of the Lords Amendment, which have obviously been reinforced by what the Minister has said, until such time as the British Standards Institution lays down certain standards regarding the materials used in the manufacture of caravans, and unless at that

stage we have a national policy, there seems to be little or no control to be exercised through the local authority over the type of vehicle which will receive approval and will come to be regarded as a caravan.
In my own part of Scotland we have all sorts of contraptions which have been fastened together, which are regarded as caravans and are sited in some place, and for which planning permission is sought. We have great difficulty in trying to control this development, and in trying to ensure that whatever is placed on a site will in no way injure the amenities of the district.
4.15 p.m.
We are not receiving a very great deal of encouragement by these Amendments, because the second Amendment is almost sympathetic to some of these proprietors, who are quite willing to construct any type of vehicle, irrespective of its value to the general community, and to regard it as a caravan for caravan purposes. It would seem to me that the Minister, in accepting the last Lords Amendment, should have been absolutely clear about its implications, and that he should give some assurance to the House that, in asking us to support the Amendment, he and his officers will certainly do all in their power to prevent the desecration of the countryside by all sorts of contraptions which may be called caravans.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that there will be some control left in the hands of the local authorities when it comes to the granting of site licences for such contraptions. I should have thought that, to have that control, the Minister must have some regard to the nature of the construction, in order to effect the protection of the amenities. Can we have an assurance that there will be some control over the nature of the materials to be used in the construction of caravans, from the planning point of view, so as to prevent any further injuries to local amenities by irresponsible caravan proprietors?

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I wish to raise one point which we raised on Second Reading and during the Committee stage as well.
Clause 4 (3, b) lays down that one of the conditions of the issue of a site licence may be for
controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or any other feature) the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;".
I pointed out, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that the words "any other feature" would include the colour. Local authorities could make certain colours, such as green, cream, pink or blue, one of the conditions of the site licence.
As I see it, this condition which has been inserted—that no condition shall be attached to the site licence in respect of controlling the types of caravans stationed on the land by reference to the materials used in their construction—only takes away from "any other feature" the materials used, but does not detract from the possibility of a local authority specifying the colour of the van to be stationed on the site. I had hoped that the Minister would have brought forward an Amendment to omit this, because I think that it is a very retrograde step to give a local authority power to specify the colour of the caravan in the site licence.

Mr. H. Brooke: The point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was discussed both in this House and in another place, but on each occasion it seemed best not to withdraw entirely from the local authorities the power to include the condition relating to colour in their site licence. I should think that the power would be rarely used, but I can envisage a place of exceptional beauty which was a caravan site, perhaps in a prominent position in a National Park, and it might be considered desirable to require, under the site licence, that caravans in that place should not be of some extraordinary variegated colours which would catch the eye and spoil the enjoyment of other people. It seems rather different from standards of construction.
Regarding standards of construction, we must think principally of new caravans. Unquestionably, there is power in the Bill, with this Amendment included, for local authorities to control the standards of repair by site licence and also to exercise control against contraptions which one could barely call a caravan

coming into a site. I think that the House would agree on that. But it seems rather unfair if a person buys a modern caravan and then finds that he is excluded from a site in a particular area because there happens to be a licence condition in force with which his caravan could not apply and could not be made to apply. So, here the approach has been different.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asked that we should not lose touch with discussions which are going on. May I say that it was my Department which asked the British Standards Institution to take on this work. We are in close touch. We are represented on the technical committee of the Institution which is considering the standards and I can assure hon. Members that the work is going forward. I hope that it will reach agreed conclusions. There is no hostility to the idea among the caravan manufacturers, who realise the advantage of having British standards established. Hon. Members may be quite confident about caravans manufactured in the future. All we can do about the variety of caravans now existing, it would seem to me, is to empower the local authority to require a certain standard of repair, without enabling them to forbid a certain type of caravan from coming on to any of their sites simply because, in the past, when it was constructed it was not made in the way in which we should like caravans to be made today.
That is the plan behind the Amendment. If the Bill be enacted with the Amendment, it will retain for the local authorities all the powers which were given to them when the Bill left this House, with the sole exception that we have put it beyond doubt—as I think would be the wish of the House—that a site licence cannot contain a condition which would actually control the materials used in the construction of a caravan. In every other respect the powers of the licensing authority will remain undiminished.

Mr. Short: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I would say that I am a little alarmed by one phrase which the Minister used. He envisaged an area of great national beauty, a National Park, and a caravan which would catch the eye. As I have explained many times, many of us consider that a


spot of colour on the landscape which catches the eye is a desirable feature. When the right hon. Gentleman drafts the model conditions I hope that he will not put in any stuffy old-fashioned regulations about vans having to be painted a uniform colour—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss model conditions on this Amendment. Some restraint is required to keep in order.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO BREACHES OF CONDITION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 26, leave out from "situated" to end of line and insert:
make an order for the revocation of the said site licence to come into force on such date as the court may specify in the order, being a date after the end of the period of fourteen days mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighty-four and subsection (2) of section eighty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as the period within which the person convicted may bring an appeal, whether by case stated or otherwise, and if before the date so specified an appeal is so brought the order shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
The person convicted or the local authority who issued the site licence may apply to the magistrates' court which has made such an order revoking a site licence for an order extending the period at the end of which the revocation is to come into force, and the magistrates' court may, if satisfied that adequate notice of the application has been given to the local authority or, as the case may be, the person convicted, make an order extending that period.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, we considered the Amendment to Clause 29, in page 18.
These two Amendments fill out a power already in the Bill for a court, under certain circumstances and on the application of a local authority, to revoke a Cite licence. But no details are given about the date from which the revocation is to take effect. The first Amendment fills that gap. It lays down that the court shall be able to determine when the revocation shall take effect. It may be desirable to postpone revocation in

order to allow a reasonable time for the caravans to be removed or for someone else to take the site over. It provides for the suspension of the revocation on appeal and, if it is then found necessary, to extend the time of the application by either party provided due notice has been given by that party to the other party. These are the provisions enabling the court to fill in the details of any revocation. The second Amendment gives equivalent powers in respect of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(TRANSFER OF SITE LICENCES AND TRANSMISSION ON DEATH, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 45, at end insert:
() If an application is made under subsection (1) of this section for consent to the transfer of a site licence to a person who is to become the occupier of the land, that person may apply for a site licence under section three of this Act as if he were the occupier of the land, and if the local authority at any time before issuing a site licence in compliance with that application give their consent to the transfer they need not proceed with the application for the site licence.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to meet a small contingent difficulty which was mentioned during the Committee stage discussions It would not be likely to arise, but it might occur in connection with the transfer of a site licence where a caravan site changes hands. Clause 9 (1) requires the local authority's consent to a transfer of the licence in these circumstances.
As was explained in Committee, that is a convenient method of making sure that a local authority knows of the transfer. It is most improbable that an authority would wish to withhold consent. After all, the site already has planning permission so that if the consent for a transfer were withheld the new occupier would, in any case, be entitled to obtain a fresh licence under Clause 3. There would seem to be no object, therefore, in the local authority withholding consent. But as the authority's consent has to be obtained, we must provide for a conceivable case where, for some reason or other, the local authority thought fit to withhold consent.
In that event, under the Bill as it is drafted, the person taking over the site might be in some difficulty because he might not be able to obtain a licence in time. He might find himself in the position of having caravans on the site without a licence and he would be committing an offence under Clause 1.
This Amendment is designed to remove that possible difficulty. It enables a man who is proposing to take over a caravan site to apply for a licence in advance. If by any chance the local authority were to withhold consent to the transfer of the old licence, he would have an opportunity to apply for a licence in advance under the terms of this Amendment and there would be no danger of his falling foul of the law.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is implied here regarding the consent of the local authority? Does it mean that an application must be made with a plan and details for the renewal of the licence, or does it merely involve a normal application by letter advising the change of use which in turn might receive the approval of the local authority?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: It merely means this. Here is a caravan site in use, with the site operator having planning permission and a site licence issued by the local authority. He is transferring or, maybe, selling the site to somebody else. The man who is coming in will be able to apply by letter to the local authority, giving particulars and referring to the licence, the existence of which will be perfectly well known to the local authority as it will have issued the licence, and asking for it to be transferred to him. It will be the simplest kind of formality.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does that mean that there can be in respect of a site two licences taking effect concurrently? In other words, can two people, one the transferor and the other the transferee, have concurrently rights of appeal against conditions attached to the licence?

Mr. Brooke: By leave of the House, may I say that I do not think that there is any danger of there being two site licences outstanding at the same time.

The person taking over the site can make two applications, one for a new licence and one for the transfer of the existing licence. If he gets the existing licence transferred to him, as is probable, he will naturally withdraw his application for a new licence as it would be no use to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause.—(EXISTING CARAVAN SITES WITH SHORT TERM PLANNING PERMIS SION GRANTED BEFORE COMMENCE MENT OF THIS ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 40, at end insert new Clause "A":
Where an application for a site licence is made in respect of an existing site and—

(a) the existing site has at the date of the application the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, but
(b) the said permission was granted before the commencement of this Act and in terms such that it will expire within a period of six months beginning with the date of the application,

no account shall be taken of the said permission either for the purposes of section three of this Act or for the purposes of the last foregoing section; and the last foregoing section shall have effect in relation to the said application as if for the references in subsections (3) and (4) thereof to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the application is made there were substituted references to a period of six months beginning with the date on which the said permission will expire.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment exactly replaces for existing sites the provision inserted previously in general terms in Clause 3 and which we have just, by Amendment, caused to be omitted. It provides that a planning permission given
before the commencement of this Act
and with less than six months to run from the date of application for site licence shall not entitle the applicant to a site licence. The Amendment therefore replaces the provisions in the Bill which we omitted earlier to allow for a temporary site licence for such things as agricultural fairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17.—(CONDITIONS REQUIRING REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF CARAVANS ON SITES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 11, leave out from "that" to "unless" in line 13 and insert:
the conditions shall not be framed so as to require the reduction of the number of caravans below the greatest number which can in the opinion of the local authority, and having retard to the said standards, be properly stationed on the land.
(2) Conditions restricting the total number of caravans stationed on a caravan site, other than conditions of the description in paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection, shall not be attached to a site licence in respect of an existing site

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That is House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps, with this Amendment, it would be convenient to take the following Amendments in lines 38, 39 and 42.
These Amendments reinforce what my right hon. Friend has always made clear, ti at a local authority may not, in attaching a condition to a site licence, arbitrarily reduce the numbers of caravans on the site and that, in reducing the numbers of caravans on an existing site, it must have regard to the availability of alternative accommodation for the families living on the site.
There are two parts to the first Amendment. The first makes it clear that conditions may not require the number to be reduced below the number considered appropriate for that site having regard to the model standards. The second Dart makes it clear that, for existing sites as well as for new sites, local authorities may not impose conditions reducing the number of caravans unless satisfied that alternative accommodation is available for the people displaced.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause.—(POWER OF RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS TO PROHIBIT CARAVANS ON COMMONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 2,5, at end insert new Clause "B":
(1) This section applies to any land in the area of a rural district council which is or forms part of a common, not being land

falling within any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(a) land to which section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to the rights of the public over certain commons and waste lands), for the time being applies;
(b) land which is subject to a scheme under Part I of the Commons Act, 1899 (under which schemes may be made for the regulation and management of certain commons);
(c) land as respects which a site licence is for the time being in force.

(2) The council of a rural district may make with respect to any land in their area to which this section applies an order prohibiting, either absolutely or except in such circumstances as may be specified in the older, the stationing of caravans on the land for the purposes of human habitation.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of section one of this Act, any person who stations a caravan on any land in contravention of an order under this section for the time being in force with respect to the land shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(4) It shall be the duty of a rural district council to take all reasonable steps to secure that copies of any order under this section which is for the time being in force with respect to any land in their area are so displayed on the land as to give to persons entering thereon adequate warning of the existence of the order, and the council shall have the right to place on the land such notices as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this subsection.

(5) An order under this section may be revoked at any time by a subsequent order made thereunder by the rural district council, or may be so varied either so as to exclude any land from the operation of the order or so as to introduce any exception, or further exception, from the prohibition imposed by the order.

(6) Where the whole or a part of any land with respect to which an order under this section is in force ceases to be land to which this section applies, the said order shall thereupon cease to have effect with respect to the said land or part; and where an order ceases under this subsection to have effect with respect to a part only of any land, the rural district council shall cause any copy of the order which is displayed on that part of the land with respect to which the order continues in force to be amended accordingly,

(7) The provisions of the Schedule (Further provisions as to orders relating to commons) to this Act shall, subject as therein provided, have effect with respect to orders under this section.

(8) In this section the word 'common' includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts. 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green."

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in 'the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I must inform the House that this Amendment involves Privilege.

Mr. Brooke: I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the proposed new Schedule A on page 6 of the Amendment Paper, which is related to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House so wishes.

Mr. Brooke: The proposed new Clause and the new Schedule together look bulky, but, in fact, they redeem a pledge which I gave in Committee. The question was raised—I am not sure that I did not raise it myself first—about provisions concerning the stationing of caravans on commons. The reason why special provision is needed in that case is that, at any rate with certain commons, there may be no occupier who could be said to
cause or permit…the use of land as a caravan site",
to use the words in Clause 1.
As the whole of the licensing provisions in the Bill presuppose someone who is the occupier they would not be applicable to commons of that character. Yet I think that it was unanimously agreed in Committee that there ought to be effective means to control the stationing of caravans on commons of this kind. Fortunately, we have not got to go deeply into the law on common land in these Amendments, but the House will appreciate that a common may range from a small village green to a very large tract of country.
The new Clause is comparatively simple, and I will seek to explain it. First, it applies only to commons which are not already subject to the restrictions in Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That Section applies mainly to urban commons and that is why this new Clause refers to rural districts and does not extend its provisions to urban districts. There is no need for that because of Section 193. It also does not apply to commons subject to schemes of management under the Commons Act, 1899. That, too, includes provisions for the control of caravans, so that there is no need for us to make fresh provision here.
What the Clause does is to enable a rural district council to make orders which will prohibit the stationing of caravans on commons in its area subject to any exceptions which may be specified in the orders. The procedure for making the orders is set out in the new Schedule. It includes prior consultation with any statutory conservators of the common and public advertisement of proposed orders. It provides for objections to the making of an order by the lord of the manor or other owner of the land. When an order has been made, notices must be posted on the land to inform the public of its effect. Contravention an order will be an offence punishable by a fine of up to £10.
The House will see from subsection (1) of the new Clause that it will not apply to any land which has a caravan site licence under the Bill—that is to say, it fits right up against the provisions in the Bill but does not overlap them. It adds to them. This proposal, which seemed to provide the most satisfactory and efficient way of ensuring control over the stationing of caravans on rural commons, is complementary to the licensing system in the rest of the Bill which, as I have said, presupposes the existence of an identifiable occupier.
It is the hope of the Government that this new Clause and Schedule, fitting in, as I have explained, to the other provisions of the Bill and also fitting into the existing statutes which will provide for control over the remaining commons, will thus effectively fill a gap which there certainly would otherwise be, as we all perceived in Standing Committee, in the application of the Bill to caravans on common land.
I am sorry that it is a rather complicated subject. I would willingly explain the matter at greater length if the House should so desire, but it has been examined in another place and the Government seek the assent of this House because, unquestionably, something of this kind is needed, and we believe that we have fashioned an instrument that will provide an effective control where there is no occupier, as there may not be in the case of common land.

Mr. C. Hughes: I think that the House will generally agree this is a necessary


Amendment The Minister is to be congratulated on producing what is, after all, a relatively simple and clear Amendment out of the difficult maze of legislation on this subject. I do not wish to detain the House, but I have one question which I hope the Minister will be good enough to answer.
Am I right in thinking that, if there are several commoners, as there are in the great majority of cases, some who use the land and some who do not, and one of these commoners objects to an order, than the council is precluded from proceeding with the order if there is one objection? It is my experience that one does find the occasional commoner who is capable of making a frivolous objection. As I understand, if one commoner does object to public use being made of common land, the only way of getting use made of it is by introducing an Act of Parliament. I had an experience of that kind myself.
Is that the power of veto which is referred to, and is that the provision under the Commons Act, 1899? If that is so, it really will weaken the power of a rural district council to carry out the provisions the Minister intends. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain that point.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has met the position as regards common land. It was I who raised it in Standing Committee, and. indeed, my attention, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), was drawn to the matter when we were going over Dunmail Raise, in the Lake District. The chairman of the planning board there pointed out a place which was common land and which was causing the planning board considerable difficulty. For that reason I raised the matter in Standing Committee, and I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the very comprehensive way in which he has dealt with the matter.
As far as I can see, the Amendment certainly will meet all the difficulties which, it seemed to me, would arise if nothing were done. I wish just to express to my right hon. Friend my appreciation

and that of those of us who felt that there was a gap in the Bill for the way he has filled it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am grateful to hon. Members for what they have said, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I recall now that he was the first Member of the Standing Committee to draw attention to the omission of provisions far commons from the Bill. I am particularly glad that he feels that this new Clause and Schedule will cover the matter satisfactorily. I am grateful, too, for what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) said, and I would just like to try to answer his question. It really relates to subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 of the Schedule.
The position is this. If an owner of a common objects to the proposal to make an order, then the council may not proceed with the order. That accords with the lord of the manor's power of veto as regards schemes of regulation under the Commons Act, 1899. In practice, of course, it is unlikely that the lord of the manor, or other owner of the common, will wish to object to the making of an order. It is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which he would, unless he was satisfied he had alternative existing powers of control which rendered further powers of control unnecessary. There may, however, be objections by other persons, and I think that that was what the hon. Member for Anglesey had particularly in mind.
An objection by anybody other than the owner is dealt with in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 4. If objections are made by anyone other than the owner, then the order must be referred to the Minister. The Minister then has a duty to consider the objections and, having considered them, he must reach his decision. He must either confirm the order or vary the order so as to make it less restrictive or refuse to confirm it. Nobody except the owner has power of veto.

Mr. Ede: I take it that we are considering now only the new Schedule A, not Schedule B. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any attention to what would happen when, under the processes of the Local Government Act, 1958,


what was an urban common is found in a rural district? It may even be a common that is in a borough at present, and the borough may become what is known in that Act as a borough included in a rural district. Some of the protection which is there now may be lost. Will it be part of the duty of the county council, in making the review of the county districts, to include in the order the necessary provisions to preserve the existing protections of the urban common when it is put into a rural district and ceases to be an urban common?

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I think that I can only take the responsibility today of explaining this now Clause and Schedule, and I should hesitate to explain what might be the effect of Section 193 of the Law of Property Act if a common which had been in an urban district and had been under the provisions of that Act were, through the operation of a county review, transferred into a rural district. What I can assure the House is that, if the common at the time in question, whether now or in the future, is in a rural district, then the rural district council will have power under this new Clause to make an order. I think that is the one thing about which the House, in connection with this Bill, will wish to be satisfied.

Mr. Short: I hope the Minister has satisfied himself about relying on lords of the manor not vetoing the orders. Is he aware that some lords of the manor are making a great deal of money out of caravan sites on common land and that he cannot be certain by any means that they will not veto orders made by rural districts? I should have been much happier if he had applied the same rules to objections by a lard of the manor, the owner of the soil, as he is applying to other objectors. I hope that he will watch this point.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 25.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO CROWN LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 19, leave out "This Part of this Act" and insect:
The provisions of this Part of this Act relating to site licences".

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As drafted, the whale of Part I is applied to Crown land in cases where the occupier is not the Crown. Part I is almost entirely concerned with site licences, but there is a power of compulsory purchase in Clause 21. The Amendment maintains the application of all the site licensing contents of Part I to such land, but excludes that compulsory purchase power. Local authorities can acquire such land by agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO SCOTLAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 38, after "reference" insert:
in subsection (3) of section one, or in section eleven, of this Act".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is merely a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (d) is needed to translate into Scottish legal terms the term "licence" in the sense it is used in Clauses 1 (3) and 11, but it is felt that there might be some ambiguity in other Clauses where the term "licence" is used in relation to a "site licence". The Amendment removes any possibility of confusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 18, leave out line 45 and insert:
the following sections shall be omitted, that is to say, section (Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons), section twenty-seven and section twenty-eight.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The main purpose of the Amendment is to disapply the new Clause B—Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons—

Mr. E. G. Willis: What does "disapply" mean?

Mr. Leburn: It means that it shall not in fact, apply to Scotland.
The purpose of the Amendment is to disapply new Clause B, which has been accepted for England and Wales. The commons to which the new Clause refers are peculiarly English, and the Amendment ensures that the Clause will not apply to Scotland. The remaining purpose of the Amendment is purely drafting, namely, to add Clause 28 to those that do not apply to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Cause 37.—(REPEATED OPERATION OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 7, at end insert:
() Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, any requirement in an enforcement notice for the discontinuance of any use of land shall operate as a requirement for the permanent discontinuance of the use to the extent that the use is in contravention of Part III of the Act of 1947, and accordingly the resumption of the use at any time after its discontinuance in compliance with the enforcement notice shall to that extent be in contravention of the enforcement notice

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Will it be convenient to the House to take with this Amendment the following five Amendments, which are all consequential?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps it will be convenient if I first explain that we are making now a distinction between responsibility for compliance with an original enforcement notice and responsibility for an offence against a continuing enforcement notice. Responsibility for compliance with an original enforcement notice is still governed by Clause 33, and the responsibility falls upon the owner.
Clause 37, to which all these Amendments apply, deals with the continued effect of an enforcement notice—that is to say, its effect if anybody should reinstate buildings, works, or developments which have been the subject of an enforcement notice and which have been pulled down, altered or abated as a result of an enforcement notice, but which are later reinstated—or the con-

tinuing effect of an enforcement notice where the resumption of a use of land which has been abated in compliance with an enforcement notice is itself resumed.
In the second case, namely, the case covered by Clause 37, where a continued enforcement notice is disobeyed—that is to say, where there is a resumption of a forbidden use, or the reinstatement of a forbidden development—there is a positive action, the perpetrator of which can be identified.
The Amendments seek to pin the responsibility, therefore, not upon the owner who is at the moment responsible, as Clause 33, which pins the responsibility on the owner, is brought into the present draft of Clause 37, but upon the person who resumes the forbidden use or reinstates the forbidden development.
I hope that that explains this rather complicated series of Amendments, which I will now discuss in detail.
The Amendment in line 7 makes it abundantly clear that an enforcement notice will continue to apply to a use of land which is resumed after being discontinued in compliance with the notice.
The Amendments in lines 16 and 20 go together. They refer to the reinstatement of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice. They provide that a local authority may go in, in the last resort, and abate the 'offending development, recovering the cost from the perpetrator. But the Amendments also remove, by the omission of subsection (3), the responsibility that at the moment lies upon the owner by bringing in Clause 33.
The next two Amendments to take together are those in lines 24 and 29. These specifically exclude the sanction on the owner in Clause 33, to which I have been referring. The final leg of this multiple Amendment is the Amendment in line 25, which makes it clear that there is no offence in reinstatement of works which have been subject to an enforcement notice if planning permission for that reinstatement has been granted.

Mr. Dempsey: I find it rather difficult to follow the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. We are dealing, first, with a particular proprietor against whom


the local authority has taken an enforcement notice. We assume that the notice has been upheld by the machinery of appeal. When that occurs a penalty is imposed on the proprietor of that caravan for every day that he occupies those premises beyond the permitted time. That is the normal course which events take.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we are dealing in all probability with another set of circumstances where, as far as I can follow his argument, the owner in this case may be the owner of the caravan but may be causing an offence against the owner of the land.

Sir K. Joseph: By leave of the House, I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are on Part II, which deals with general planning and not just caravans.

Mr. Dempsey: We are dealing with general planning, which reinforces my argument to an even greater extent. In general planning there is enforceable legislation operating at present which can be very detrimental towards the perpetrator of any unnecessary development or unnecessary existence of any development which, in the opinion of the powers that be or the authorities concerned, should not be tolerated any longer. From the general planning point of view, when consent has been refused and the refusal has been enforced at court level, penalties exist to such an extent that it is unwise, unprofitable and undesirable for any unauthorised developer to proceed with the development of his site or area, or whatever his fixture or asset may be.
5.0 p.m.
I am trying to ascertain the purpose served by these Amendments. In accepting them, does it mean that we are in all probability negating the present powers whereby very strong action can be taken against unauthorised developments in various part of the country. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this matter for me. If, from my reading of the Amendments, they negate the effect of provisions at present in force, I should be very surprised that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for their acceptance. It may be that he has arrived at the conclusion that these Amendments will further enforce the existing legislation.
I realise that at present where a development has been rejected by the authorities concerned and the developer continues the development, a very heavy penalty can be meted out for such unauthorised development. It would appear to me that to some extent these Amendments may be in conflict with the operation of existing legislation; on the other hand, they may not. As a member of a local authority, I should like to be satisfied that these Amendments in no way detract from the use of existing powers and existing legislation which render it well-nigh impossible for unauthorised developers to continue any development without the planning consent of the local authority.

Mr. James McInnes: I gather that there is justification for the Amendments in as much that to quote the Parliamentary Secretary's own words, they would relieve the owner of certain responsibilities. He stated, also, that in the process action would be taken against perpetrators where they were identified. Does he visualise instances where such perpetrators would not be identified?

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think that the purpose of the Amendments is not open to any objection, but, like my hon. Friends, I feel that there are some matters which possibly need further explanation.
As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, he was telling the House that the effect of these Amendments would be that where an enforcement notice had been served on an owner of land, and there was a resumption of contravening use of the land, the enforcement authority could go not against the owner but against the current perpetrator. If I am right in that, it would seem to be an objective which was desirable in the public interest, subject to the perpetrator being given sufficient notice of what was toward.
I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would enlighten the House on that matter, because it would be undesirable that the perpetrator, to give him that title, should be made subject to enforcement proceedings without notice to himself in circumstances where he might have had no intimation from the original owner and recipient of the enforcement notice of any proceedings having been taken. I do not think that


I can usefully develop that point further. There seems to be a need here for the House to be informed of the protection, if any, to prevent the undesirable effect of the perpetrator of the contravening use being made suddenly, as it were, the object of enforcement proceedings in circumstances in which he could not reasonably have discovered that originally enforcement proceedings had been commenced and carried through against the owner.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: What the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said surely reinforces the need to see that there is a proper registration of enforcement notices. If enforcement notices are, in future, as it were, to run with the land, the normal considerations of a public register giving full particulars of the enforcement notice ought to be secured. I am not sure to what extent it is at present secured, or to what extent it may be improved by administrative action. I should think that there is good room for improvement. I intervene only to ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance, to help both the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself, that enforcement notices, in some detail, should be registered against the land, so that persons sub-sequently dealing with and on the land may have full notice thereof.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to express my gratitude for this Amendment. During the earlier stages of the Bill, I sail on this subject that Clause 37, as it is now, was most unfair on the owner because, as it stood, it made him absolutely liable for resumption of a breach of enforcement notice although he might not be responsible for it. This Amendment plants the responsibility on the perpetrator, on the right person, and to that extent I am very glad that it has been tabled. Nevertheless, it does raise the difficulty that it is now absolutely necessary that the new owner of the land—the purchaser of the land—should be able to be perfectly clear about the liabilities arising after the enforce-meat notice.
The enforcement notice may be quite a complicated document. It may set out the conditions on which the land is allowed to be developed as well as the breaches that have been committed. That means that, as it stands, the register is

really quite useless. As far as I can recollect, if one searches for an enforcement notice in the register one gets only the name of the person against whom it is registered, the property, and the date. That is all.
That will not be sufficient for owners in future, because the enforcement notice will be a charge on the land for ever or, at least, until some one removes it. Therefore, every future owner of the land will want full particulars of that enforcement notice. I recollect trying to obtain from a local authority full particulars of an enforcement notice, after I have searched the register and obtained merely names and dates. I was refused that information by the local authority. I argued, from the legal point of view, that it could not refuse to give me those particulars, but I think that I was wrong and that the authority was quite right as the law stood, in refusing it. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this and, by regulation, produce a really effective register of enforcement notices.

Sir K. Joseph: With permission of the House, I will try to reply to these points First, I would stress that the Clause, and the Amendments to it, share with the whole of Part II the object, which has been welcomed on both sides, of strengthening planning powers. In fact, the Amendments increase the planning authorities' powers. There is a power given to the local authority to abate the contravening development and, secondly, the fact that enforcement notices are continuing in their effect is emphasised and made absolutely plain, where as before it was not 100 per cent. so.
I am asked how we can be sure that the perpetrator will be identifiable, since these Amendments pin the responsibility on the perpetrator. I tried to explain that we are here dealing with a resumption of a use or a development that offends against the enforcement notice requiring an abatement or alteration of an existing development. Consequently, there is positive action which must have a perpetrator, so there should be no difficulty—unless the local planning authority has its eyes shut—in identifying the perpetrator.
The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) asked about the purchaser's position in knowing of an enforcement notice. I can tell them that an enforcement notice is registered in the local land charges register—but, here, I must meet the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the information is not definite enough and, in complicated cases, not nearly definite enough. I think, however, that my hon. Friend will agree that the purchaser of the land is at least put on inquiry by seraching the local land charges register, and it is then up to him to seek the full details he requires from the vendor, or through his solicitors. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion about a suitable regulation if there should be need.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility that, as we are dealing with perpetrators who are resuming a contravening and prohibited use, it may be found that, in practice, the registration will not give the perpetrator sufficient notice to enable him to be dealt with fairly? I think that this is true, and the reason is very simple. At the date of the search of the register he may not have contemplated renewal of the prohibited use. In cases like that, before enforcement proceedings are begun against him, his attention should be drawn to the fact that what he is doing and the work that he is carrying out are in contravention of the planning permission, and are the subject of an earlier enforcement notice.
The point is an administrative point, but I want to emphasise it at this stage, because I think that the risk of possible unfairness is not entirely met by registration of the land charge since, at the operative date of his search into the land charge, he may not have formed the intention to resume the contravening use.

Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. Friend replies to that, I should like to draw attention to the case in which an enforcement notice may have been issued two or three vendors back, and the present vendor may have no copy of the notice to supply to the purchaser. There may be no copy other than that registered with the local planning authority.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that I can untie these knots. I would draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) to the fifth line of the Amendment in page 25, line 20, which states that before taking any action to require compliance with the enforcement notice the local authority must give not less than 28 days' notice to the owner and occupier. I think that that meets the hon. and learned Gentleman's main point.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I can only say that it is open to any occupier to clarify the position once and for all by seeking planning permission for the use or development that he wishes to carry out. He could, therefore. if he was at all doubtful about the position regarding a use or development, put himself in the clear with the local planning authority, right or wrong, by seeking planning permission.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 40.—(ADDITIONAL POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PURPOSES OF CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 39, at end insert:
(2) This section shall apply in relation to a notice or order served or made before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served or made after the commencement of this Act

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Clause enables officers of the local planning authority or the Minister to enter upon land to see whether a notice that has been served, or an order that has been made under Part III of the 1947 Act has been complied with. It seems clearly desirable that the power of entry should apply to notices served or orders made before the commencement of this Measure, as well as after. That is the sole point of the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 41.—(APPLICATION OF PART II TO SPECIAL POWERS OF CONTROL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 40, leave out subsection (1).

5.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment needs to be read in conjunction with the following Amendment in page 27, line 13, which seeks to insert new Clause C, with the new Schedule B, and with two small consequential Amendments thereafter. It looks formidable but, in fact, this is nothing but an honourable attempt by the Government to meet a perfectly legitimate criticism, which was first voiced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and which received other support.
That criticism was that subsection (1) of Clause 41 enabled the Minister to make regulations, and the suggestion was that there was no reason why, instead of giving that power to the Minister, the actual application should not be set out in full in the Bill. The Government examined this and, as a result, it has been found possible to meet this criticism, so there will be no question of passing the Bill with a power to the Minister to make unknown regulations applying the new procedure as regards enforcement notices in the Bill to notices served under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. We are leaving out subsection (1) and propose to insert the new Clause C.
The meat of the matter is actually in Schedule B. and the House will probably wish me, without going into great detail, to explain that Schedule. Part I of the Schedule deals with notices that may be served under Section 30 (8) of the 1947 Act; that is where alterations have been made to a building of special architectural or historic interest in contravention of the terms of that Section. Part I simply and solely makes provisions in regard to such notices corresponding to the provisions in this Bill relating to enforcement notices in so far as these are applicable.
I will willingly go into further detail if it is desired, but I can assure the House that there is nothing here except a suitable application of the Clauses of the Bill relating to enforcement notices so that they will suitably apply to the case of alterations to buildings of special architectural or historic interest to

which, as the House will remember, Section 30 of the 1947 Act refers. Part II of the proposed new Schedule B contains similar provisions in regard to notices served under Section 33 of the 1947 Act. That is a quite separate matter. Section 33 is concerned with the position that may arise where the condition of any vacant site or other open land is injurious to amenity. As with Part I. Part II simply applies the general enforcement provisions in this Bill so that they will fit accurately to the case of the vacant site or other open land.
However, in this instance—that is to say, in Part II—there is one important difference. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 10 of the proposed new Schedule they will see that it preserves the present right of appeal to the magistrates' court against notices under Section 33 of the 1947 Act, whereas appeals under Clause 30 of the Bill will lie to the Minister and not to the court. It seems to the Government that this is the more appropriate course in that case, because the questions which may arise on a notice under Section 33 will depend very largely on the local circumstances. They will never involve issues of planning policy, and it is the issues of planning policy that will come to the Minister under the Bill.
The grounds of appeal to the magistrates' court are set out in paragraph 10 of the Schedule, and the House may notice that they are somewhat wider than the grounds of appeal allowed by the present regulations under Section 33 of the 1947 Act. That is deliberate. It is a further attempt to meet criticisms of the present regulations which were voiced in Committee. That paragraph is the only one to which I should specifically draw attention. Apart from that one point, that these appeals, for the reason that I have explained, are to lie to the magistrates' court and not to the Minister, the whole of this new Schedule B is designed simply to apply in suitable terms the enforcement provisions in the Bill to the special cases in Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act.

Mr. Ede: The heading to Part II of the proposed new Schedule B is:
Notices relating to Waste Land, etc.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this includes land which is generally described as "waste of the


highway", or is it just some tract of land that has not been put to any particular purpose?

Mr. H. Brooke: I think I can best answer the right hon. Gentleman by referring to Section 33 of the 1947 Act. The words there are quite open. Section 33 says:
If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of the area of that authority, or of any adjoining area, is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area …".
There is no limitation.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that I can let this Schedule go through without expressing surprise about paragraph 10 which my right hon. Friend was explaining and which retains the right to go to the magistrates on appeal.
Under the existing law there are several procedures of appeal—to put it briefly, either to the Minister, to the magistrates or to the High Court. The whole purpose, as I understood it, of Part II of the Bill is to streamline those three procedures and bring them entirely through the procedure of appeal to the Minister and thence to the High Court on a point of law.
In fact, throughout the Committee stage when I put forward certain proposals for splitting the right of appeal away from the Minister when there were established rights which were purely subjects of law, I was met with the argument that the purpose of this Bill was to streamline it into one form of procedure. If we are to leave paragraph 10 as it is, we shall get into great difficulties in future. In one small section of the whole procedure of appeal from town planning decisions and from enforcement notices we are having the procedure of appeal to the magistrates. It will be in very few cases, but in those few cases it will be an abnormal procedure.
I must express surprise that after the principle of streamlining has been so expressed by my right hon. Friend throughout the stages of this Bill, we should find that this procedure is being retained at the last moment.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman assured my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the heading to

Part II of the proposed new Schedule included waste of the highway. Is that so?

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, every Minister is cautious about expounding existing Acts of Parliament but, as I understand, the words
any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area
are not limited in any way so as to exclude waste of the highway.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is more learned in the law than I am, and if he says that I am wrong I will, of course, accept his opinion, but I do not see any exclusive limitation here.

Mr. Paget: On the contrary, I do not for a moment wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I can assure him that he is mistaken if he thinks that I am more learned than he is. What I want to know—and surely, if we are being asked to legislate about this matter we are entitled to know what we are legislating about—iis what "waste of the highway" is. I have never heard of it. Surely I am entitled to an answer.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall have an absolutely correct definition I would refer him to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) Who first brought this concept and this phrase into our discussions. It certainly does not arise in the Lords Amendments to which I am seeking to get the House to assent, and, although I am always anxious to help the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that I can take the matter any further today in either defining the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used or expounding Section 33 of the 1947 Act.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I accept all he said about streamlining. Nevertheless, it seemed to the Government that here was a case where there was no mixture of planning considerations with other considerations. Here was a case which depended purely and simply on the local circumstances. That is exactly the kind of thing which the magistrates, with their local knowledge, are so well qualified to determine. I am not such a pedant that I would claim


that because we are laying down a principle for the Bill as a whole there can be no exceptions whatever. The Government approach here is a purely practical one. It would seem more convenient to all concerned, and better suited to the achievement of right decisions on appeal based on local knowledge, if this kind of appeal went to the magistrates' courts.
I can assure my hon. Friend that there was nothing sinister in our intentions, and we were certainly not wishing to undermine our general argument about the desirability of appeals lying to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(CASES WHERE A CARA-VAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 29, at end insert:
for the purposes of recreation".

5.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes it clear that the exemptions in paragraph 5 of the Schedule—sites approved by exempted orranisations—covers recreational caravanning only. This was always the intention, and it is given effect by the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 7, leave out from beginning to first "in" in line 11 and insert:

and, except in the case of an order the sole effect of which is to revoke in whole or part a previous order, the local authority shall, not less than three months before the order comes into force, cause a notice setting out the effect of the order and the date on which it comes into force to be published in the London Gazette, or, if the land is in Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette, and".

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment deals with the very small matter of machinery. Where an order is made under the Bill withdrawing any exemptions under paragraphs 2 to 10 of the First Schedule the Bill as drafted would require the order to be advertised in a local paper at least three months before it comes into effect. The Amendment requires any such order to be advertised, in addition, in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette as the case may be.
This arrangement, as embodied in the Amendment, would correspond with the existing arrangements for publicising Article 4 directions under a general development order, and the Amendment seems desirable in principle because the revocation of licensing exemptions might well affect national organisations and touring caravanners as well as the people living in the area referred to in the order, and if the order were only to be advertised in the local papers there might not be sufficient opportunity for people outside the immediate area to get to know about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND CON-STITUTION OF MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 15, at end insert:
(4A) No person who for the time being is employed in the civil service of the Crown whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time, shall be appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission; and for the purposes of this subsection 'civil service of the Crown' includes the civil service of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Foreign Service and Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.

5.33 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes it impossible for a civil servant to be appointed as a Commissioner on the Mental Welfare Commission and so puts beyond any doubt the independence of the Commission. The Amendment meets an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend on Report.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very disappointed that the Joint Under-Secretary has not been more charitable in his remarks. If he will re-read the report of the Report stage and of our proceedings in Committee he will see that we tried to convince him and his right hon. Friend of the wisdom of putting in words of this kind. Admittedly our efforts were hardly satisfactory; we never pretended that they were. But we needed something of this kind. The hon. Gentleman might have complimented hon. Members on this side of the House on their persistence in ultimately driving the Government to make a distinction of this kind.
The Amendment is very welcome to my hon. Friends. It gets over many of the difficulties we foresaw. In fact, it is much wider in its implications than many of us expected, and I have no doubt that it will receive an all-round welcome. I am sure that a welcome will be given to it even by some of our critics in the medical Press, who said

that this matter might have been pressed less vehemently by the Opposition. I think that we have done a good job, and I am sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary has not paid us the gracious tribute that we so thoroughly deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40.—(DETENTION OR GUARDIANSHIP OF CERTAIN PATIENTS AFTER THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 18, leave out "and" and insert:
(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection,".

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 19, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a further drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 21, leave out "said age" and insert "age of twenty-five".

Mr. Galbraith: I beg 'to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another drafting Amendment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary is getting away with murder here, with his pleas that these Amendments are purely drafting. These Amendments appear to me to be part of one specific change in the Bill. Will he be kind enough to explain why this change is being made, and what it means?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member always doubts what I say. There are drafting Amendments, consequential on the division into two of the former subsection (1) of Clause 40, which had become rather long as a result of previous Amendments. The changes also have the advantage of bringing the structure of the Clause more into line with that of Clause 39, which deals with the regular reviews of the authority in


regard to detention or guardianship of patients.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 27, after "informed" insert "forthwith".

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes it plain that the board of management or local health authority concerned must inform the patient and his nearest relative immediately when authority for detention or guardianship is renewed at the age of 25 since there is a limited period for appeal to the sheriff.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his plea for a little more information. It is rather disturbing to note that the hon. Member agrees more easily with another place, which is unelected, than he does with the elected representatives of Scotland who put forward these points in Committee. We are delighted that he has seen the light, and that the persons in another place have convinced him, but I still think that the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) earlier on is still pertinent. We have struggled manfully to try to get this principle inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 24, after first "person" insert:
, subsection (4) shall have effect as if for the reference to an accused person there was substituted a reference to a child or young person.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is extension of an Amendment accepted by the House on Report and it ensures that a child or young person brought before the court under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, shall have the same right to

a medical examination, as that given to other persons under this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82.—(REMOVAL OF ALIEN PATIENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 28, after "there" insert:
and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Hon. Members will recollect that a somewhat similar Amendment was resisted at an earlier stage of the Bill. What we were afraid of then was that the words
in the interests of the patient
might have to be construed rather narrowly and might require my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that the standards of psychiatric treatment in the patient's own country were not only satisfactory, but were as high as anything which existed in this country. After further careful consideration, we have however decided that the words:
in the interests of the patient
can be construed rather more broadly so that it would be proper for my right hon. Friend not only to have regard to the standards of psychiatric treatment, but also to more general factors such as the benefit which would accrue to the patient from being among his own people. In light of this reconsideration, we now feel that we can accept the words originally proposed by the Opposition.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We on this side of the House welcome the acceptance of this Amendment, which was moved in the Lords by one of my noble Friends. It is interesting to listen to the reasons now adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary to show why the House should accept the Amendment. I remember the long debate we had in Committee and the feelings that were forcibly expressed by the Joint Under-Secretary. The reasons given then were not that perhaps the psychiatric treatment available, say, in China—that was the country referred to by the Joint UnderSecretary—might not be as good as in


our country and that, therefore, the patient could not be sent back. They were not the reasons adduced, but I am sorry to say that financial reasons were in the main adduced that morning in Committee.
On Report we felt that we should try some other way. The Secretary of State, who replied to that debate, was in very great difficulty because time after time he used the words:
in the interests of the patient
and we had to intervene to tell him that those were the very words we had tried to get accepted in Committee but they were not accepted. I am glad, not only for the sake of the patients, but for the sake of the good name of my country, that this Lords Amendment is now proposed, I felt that we were making great improvements in the Bill and that the rejection in Committee of this proposal would bring shame and disgrace on us. I am delighted that the Government at long last saw the light and that when the Amendment was moved in another place it was accepted.
On a previous Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) seemed a little annoyed that something had been accepted in the Lords, but that Amendment was one which my hon. Friends had tried to get accepted in Committee and it was moved by the Government in order to meet the points we had made.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I am glad that at last the Government have seen wisdom on this matter. Once again I think that the Joint Under-Secretary might have expressed a little gratitude to hon. Members on this side of the House for their perspicacity in seeing the weakness of the Clause as it stood.
I suggest that there is another lesson to be learned. It is that the hon. Gentleman must not look askance at ideas which come from this side of the House. In the course of time he will find, as he continues to occupy his very high office, that more and more he should rely upon what is said on this side. If he does so, he will get very good Bills.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVI-SIONS)

Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 14, after "thirty-nine" insert "and section fifty-one".

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment makes it plain that when the Bill comes into operation Clause 51 relating to appeal to the sheriff, as well as Clause 39, will be applicable to those already in hospital or under guardianship.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 51, after second "of" insert:
section eighty-nine of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act. 1857,".

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is consequential on Amendments which were made in Committee and, of course, I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot remember whether they were Government Amendments or not. The effect of this Amendment is merely to ensure that a patient who has been transferred to a mental hospital from prison under Section 89 of the 1857 Act has his sentence treated as expiring at the end of the period for which he would be liable to be detained had he not been so transferred.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 95, line 9, at end insert:

"The Land Tax Redemption Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3, c. 116)

In section fourteen, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics or of idiots' and 'lunatics, idiots', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

The Admiralty (Signal Stations) Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 128)

In section three, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

The Defence Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict, c. 94)

In sections ten and eighteen, as they apply to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the moaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict, c. 17)

In section eighty-two, for the words' be a lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person, such lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person 'there shall be substituted the words is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, and is incapable by reason of his mental disorder of managing and administering his property and affairs, he'.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 8 & 9 Vict, c. 19)

In section seven, for the words 'lunatics or idiots, fatuous or furious persons' and for the words 'lunatics, idiots, fatuous and furious persons', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

In section sixty-seven, for the words 'lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words person suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the 114, mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

In section sixty-nine, for the word lunacy there shall be substituted the words incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

In section seventy, for the words 'idiotcy, lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'."

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient to discuss this Amendment with the next three Lords Amendments in lines 37, 43 and in page 96, line 6. The effect of all of them is to replace by the terminology introduced in the Bill various out-dated reerences to:
lunatics, idiots and furious and fatuous persons.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 96, line 45, leave out from beginning to the end of line 47 and insert:
Section three shall cease to have effect.

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c. 60)

In section fifty-five, in subsection (1), as it applies to Scotland, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

The Friendly Societies Act, 1896
(59 & 60 Vict, c. 25)

In section thirty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 '."

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment does two things. First, it substitutes the terminology of the Bill for obsolete wording under the Merchant Shipping Act and the Friendly Societies Act. Secondly, this and the last four Lords Amendments ensure that Service personnel discharged because of mental disorder will be dealt with under the appropriate mental health legislation of the United Kingdom country concerned if compulsory admission to hospital is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 8, at end insert:
or in a hospital or institution within the meaning of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1948,

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment, read with the first part of the following Amendment, is to extend to persons receiving treatment for mental disorder in Northern Ireland the exemption from liability to recall for service contained in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Act, 1948.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 10, at end insert:
or, as the case may be, of the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority.

The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949 (12 & 13 Geo. 6, c, 63)

In section nineteen, in subsection three, for the word 'insanity' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.

In the Fifth Schedule, for the word 'insanity', wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'; in paragraph 4, for the words 'upon an order or warrant being granted for the detention of a solicitor as a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'where in pursuance of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, a solicitor is, by reason of mental disorder, admitted to a hospital and becomes liable to be detained therein or becomes subject to guardianship,' for the words 'any such order or warrant remains in force' there shall be substituted the words he continues to be so liable or so subject', and in the proviso to the said paragraph, for the words the order or warrant ceases to be in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he ceases to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship'."

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is partly consequential on the previous Amendment. It also substitutes references to the provisions of the Bill for obsolete terminology in the provisions of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment; In page 99, line 35, leave out "and (3)" and insert", (3) and (4)".

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, again, extends the right under subsection (4) of Clause 57 to independent medical examination in private. It applies to persons who are detained in hospital at a time when they are subject to the procedure under Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949.

Miss Herbison: I am very pleased that this Amendment was accepted in another place and that the Government agree with it. The Lord Advocate will be aware that throughout the whole passage of the Bill in this House, we on this side tried to ensure that there was the greatest civil liberty for all people, whether they were brought in from civil life or had been sentenced for any kind of crime. This seems to be an improvement and we welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Renton.]

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I take it that it is in order to debate whether the Lords Amendments should be discussed. A sort of brainwashing technique is now going on in which we are being invited to agree with the Lords in so many Amendments. This is, no doubt, to prepare us for the statement which is to be made at six o'clock from No. 10, Downing Street concerning other important changes. We shall, I hope, get through these proceedings on the Bill rapidly and agreeably. It is a great pleasure to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(PUNISHMENT WITHOUT PROSE-CUTION OF OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LIGHTS, REFLECTORS, OBSTRUC-TION, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, after "road" insert:
during the hours of darkness (as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause - (1, a) is intended to apply to lighting and reflector offences committed in respect of stationary vehicles at night, but the Regulation which the offences are created—Regulation 24A of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955—requires that a vehicle shall at all times, which means even during the day, carry the equipment that is necessary to ensure that it can be adequately lit at night. An offence against that Regulation, albeit a technical offence, can therefore be committed during the day.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that it certainly is not appropriate that the ticket system should be used for merely technical offences of that kind. The effect of the Amendment will be to ensure that this offence can be the subject of the ticket system only when it is committed during the hours of darkness.

Mr. Benn: As I understand it, it is an offence to have during daylight a car which is not capable of being lit at night.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton indicated assent.

Mr. Benn: That is to say, if I have a car parked in the street and it does not have a battery under the bonnet, I am committing an offence. Nobody suggests in the Bill that traffic wardens should go round peeping under car bonnets, because that is not their function. On the other hand, if a car does not have a reflector, which is a quite difficult thing to fit, and it is spotted by a traffic warden in the late afternoon without reflectors, it is almost bound to commit an offence when darkness falls.
It is rather riduculous to preclude a traffic warden, who will soon be called upon to perform quite important functions, from taking action when he sees a car without a reflector fitted. That is to say, lighting equipment, which is a quite technical matter—we almost get into the field of vehicle testing when we come to the serviceablility of lighting equipment—is one thing. The reflector is an essential part of the safety apparatus of the car.
I only wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether a traffic warden, seeing a car without a fixed reflector, will be in a position to take any action to prevent the driver and owner of that car being allowed to get away with it without having it corrected. Possibly, the hon. and learned Gentleman can settle the point.

Mr. Renton: Yes, indeed. I give the hon. Member that assurance. There is nothing in the Amendment which prevents the traffic warden from drawing the constable's attention to the defective state of the reflector, whether shortly before the hours of darkness or at some other time. The main point of the Amendment is that the ticket procedure

could not be used except for an offence committed during the hours of darkness.

Mr. Benn: Will it be in order for a traffic warden to take the number of a car that is not equipped with a reflector and to report it in the absence of a constable?

Mr. Renton: Yes. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out from "offering" to end of line 13 and insert:
the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty under this section; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or before the date on which proceedings are begun, whichever event last occurs.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 1 as it left this House gave an option to pay a fixed penalty to the court or to wait and be prosecuted. That description was accurate as far as it went, but it was not complete and it has caused doubts to arise concerning the description of the offer as an option. We hope that these doubts will be removed by the Amendment.
It may be convenient if I remind the House that the purpose of the ticket is to allow a person who knows he has committed an offence to pay without being convicted. In nearly all cases, if the fixed penalty is not paid proceedings will be taken. Therefore, in practice, the choice will be to pay or be prosecuted. The Bill does not, however, oblige the police to prosecute if in their discretion, and having regard to the circumstances, they decide not to do so. I must point out that it would only be in exceptional cases that the police would exercise their discretion not to prosecute. Therefore, a more accurate description of the choice is to say that the driver may pay and so avoid the possibility of prosecution and conviction, or do nothing and run the risk of proceedings being taken against him if the police are satisfied that there are grounds for doing so.
6.0 p.m.
In the Clause as it was drafted the ticket was described as an option in order to make it clear that the person liable was not bound to pay unless he wished, but for the reasons I have given it is arguable, and doubt was thrown on the position in another place that the word "option" is not quite appropriate to the circumstances, because more precisely what is offered is not an option so much as an opportunity to compound, or, in other words, to discharge the liability to be convicted after prosecution and after failure to pay the fixed penalty.
That is what the first part of the Lords Amendment says. In other words, it is a more precise statement than we had in the previous draft of the Bill of what payment is. Conversely, the effect of non-payment, which is liability to conviction and which would have been discharged by payment, remains; but it is liability, not certainty. It was felt in another place that the word "option" implied a certain amount of certainty of prosecution if the fixed penalty was not paid.
The Government also took advantage of the opportunity in another place of improving the precision of the second part of this subsection as well so as to give complete protection against conviction where the penalty is paid either within the 21 days, or even if it is paid outside that period before proceedings are begun. If the person responsible for an offence lets the 21 days elapse before he pays he is at risk, because if an information is laid before his money reaches the clerk to the justices the payment will not discharge his liability to conviction. It is only if the money is paid within the 21 days that the protection is absolute.

Mr. Benn: I must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation has raised clouds of doubt in my mind about whether we ought to agree with the Lords in all these Amendments although we want the police to have discretion. For example, I have a ticket on my car and I go to the police and give a perfectly reasonable explanation and as a result they do not want to prosecute. That seems to be a very sensible thing. We want that. On the other hand, we do not want to get the public into the

state of thinking that there is not a very great likelihood of prosecution, because they then will postpone paying their ticket fine either in the hope that the police will forget it, or at any rate not prosecute, or just because they feel that they lose nothing by postponing the payment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by saying that if one does not pay within the 21 days and on the twenty-second day one gets a summons, even if one then pays, one does not discharge one's liability to prosecution. In those circumstances I can conceive of it happening that people will be getting tickets and will hope—or some at any rate—that they will not be prosecuted by the police, and that they may even write a letter explaining to the police, in the hope that they will not be prosecuted, and they will not pay the money, and at the end of the 21 days the police will prosecute in certain cases. Then in such a case a man will say, Heavens, they mean to prosecute. I must pay." But the money will not be accepted and the case will go to court. That is what we want to avoid—cluttering up the courts with small offences.
So, although I think that this is going to work all right, it would be wise for the hon. and learned Gentleman not to say anything in this House at this stage which suggests that prosecution will not follow non-payment of tickets, because I think that the certainty of prosecution following non-payment of tickets has an essential part to play in getting the public to co-operate with the authorities by paying when they know themselves to be guilty. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear this point up I think it would be a great convenience for the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Ede: Surely this narrower point that we are now discussing is one for administration. I would have thought that, if a ticket has been served and then the chief constable or the lawyer in the chief constable's office decides that it is not a case in which prosecution should take place he ought to write and say so. I should have thought that there should be some administrative arrangement whereby that could be carried through. On the other hand, I do not want to see these cases kept out of court. I view this method


of getting notice and then avoiding a conviction, which is a real advantage, as not a thing to be encouraged. If a breach of the law is committed in this country it ought to be dealt with in the courts.

Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) by saying that, in moving, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment", I did point out that the most usual practice would be for the police to prosecute if the fixed penalty was not paid; it is only, as I said, in rare cases, exceptional cases, that in their discretion they may find that it is not appropriate to prosecute. This must be coupled with the other statement that I made that in these cases where the motorist concerned knows that he has committed the offence—and he will generally have no doubt about it—he will be wise to pay up. We expect that most motorists who know that they have committed an offence will pay up.
That, to some extent, also answers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but I think it is fair to the Government that I should point out that it was partly in deference to the view which he expressed in Standing that we should do nothing to interfere with the discretion of the police to prosecute or not prosecute, that we in another place asked their Lordships to amend the Bill in this way which I am now commending we should follow, so as to make it perfectly clear that there is that discretion in rare and exceptional cases in which it would not be appropriate either for the motorist to pay the fixed penalty or the police to prosecute.
If it gives any assurance to the hon. Gentleman, I stress here and now that in nearly all cases, if the fixed penalty is not pa d, there will be prosecution.
The only other point for me to answer is the point which the right hon. Gentleman referred to as an administrative matter, namely, that if there is to be no prosecution the police or the court or somebody should write and say so. That is an administrative matter, and we will consider it, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.

Mr. Benn: I want to put one final point. I conceive a difficulty here, If

a man receives a ticket then he may or may not be guilty but he might decide to pay to save trouble, and the police meanwhile might decide that he probably was not guilty and will not in any case prosecute. Can there be no procedure, as my right hon. Friend said, for the withdrawal of the ticket so that the man may be left in no doubt? We cannot go into this at this stage when we can speak more than once only with the leave of the House, but I think that the point was worth raising, in that we have alerted the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department to possible administrative difficulties which may arise in the operation of this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgfield): May I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a specified period, between the time that a man receives a ticket and the time that the charge is made against him, during which he can pay?

Mr. Benn: The question should not be addressed to me, but the period is 21 days, and after that even if he pays he is not free from prosecution.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 18, leave out from "may" to end of line 19 and insert:
have been specified therein

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient also to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in line 38.
These Amendments are necessitated by the Amendment to which we have just agreed and it might be of help to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) to point out that subsection (6) as proposed to be amended will require the ticket to specify instead of the period of option the period during which the police and the local authority are precluded from taking proceedings. This is the effect of the second Amendment. The hon. Member will find from the Bill that that period is 21 days.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 15, at end insert:
(9A) In any proceedings for an offence to which subsection (1) of this section applies no reference shall be made after the conviction of the accused to the giving or affixing of any notice under this section or to the payment or non-payment of a fixed penalty thereunder unless in the course of the proceedings or in some document which is before the court in connection with the proceedings reference has been made by or on behalf of the accused to the giving or affixing of such a notice or, as the case may he, to such a payment or nonpayment.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment was moved by the Government to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others in Committee in another place, and indeed it had been the subject of discussion in our Standing Committee. It is the question whether the fact that a driver had been served with a ticket could be quoted against him in the courts. In dealing with this matter perhaps it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that I felt that it could be dealt with by the existing practice and rules of evidence and that justice would be obtained in that way. But in view of all the discussions that have taken place in this House and in another place we feel that the matter might very well be more specifically dealt with by writing something into the Bill.
There are two types of proceedings to which the question may be relevant. First, there are the proceedings for the offence for which the ticket was served while the fixed penalty has not been paid, and subsequently separate proceedings for another offence but one of a similar character. In neither proceedings could payment of a fixed penalty be referred to by the prosecution, because the question would be irrelevant to the question of guilt on the evidence before the court. Therefore, it would be inadmissible except in so far as the defence might raise the matter in proceedings for a ticketable offence on the ground that a penalty had been paid and therefore there was a defence. The defence obviously would raise that matter before conviction, because there would be conviction if it did not raise it.
There remains, however, the question whether the service of a ticket or the

payment of a penalty could be quoted as part of an offender's antecedents, his past history as known to the police. That is clearly a matter which is considered after conviction and while the court is considering sentence. While the offender has been convicted of an offence for which a ticket was served, the fact that he sought to exercise his right to defend the case instead of paying a fixed penalty ought not to 'be quoted against him. We have come to the conclusion that it would be right specifically to prohibit this in the Bill. I think that it was common ground between us in Committee.
6.15 p.m.
On the other hand, where the fixed penalty has been paid there is no conviction and the liability for conviction has been discharged. In these circumstances also, we think it reasonable that the offender should be protected against a reference to the fact that he has been previously served with a ticket and has paid if he is brought up before the court later for a similar offence. In other words, payment of a fixed penalty after the serving of a ticket is not in itself a conviction and it should not be treated as a previous conviction if he is later prosecuted for a similar offence.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Let us take the extreme case of a man who in one year has received ten tickets which he has paid within the 21 days and at some stage he is then accused of dangerous driving, which of course is an entirely different offence and he is taken to court and prosecuted. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to be saying that previous offences, whether paid for by ticket or by means of the court procedure, must not be referred to by the prosecution, and that they ought not to be mentioned unless the defendant is stupid enough to refer to them himself in court.

Mr. Renton: Yes. The hon. Member of course is referring to the persistent offender. If the traffic warden or the police constable notices that a certain person, whether with the same vehicle or with different vehicles, is becoming a persistent offender and is always having tickets served on him and always paying, the warden or constable may decide that it is no use going on serving a ticket on such a man, that it is a waste of time


and therefore he had better be prosecuted. The case of the persistent offender will not be allowed to reach such proportions that he is such a nuisance that his behaviour ought to have a bearing on the conviction for dangerous driving which is a very different and very serious kind of offence.
The effect of the Amendment is that thy; fact, that the man has paid up a fixed penalty will not be admissible as part of his antecedents if he is later convicted of dangerous driving. To sum up, the effect of the Amendment is that the fact that a person has had a ticket served on him so that a fixed penalty has been paid or has not been paid should not be mentioned in proceedings before or after conviction of an offence to which Clause 1 (1) applies, unless it has been mentioned by or on behalf of the accused in the course of proceedings or in some document before the courts, for example, in a statement submitted with a plea of guilty sent by post. I have fairly fully explained the reasons for the Amendment and I think that they follow the views expressed at an earlier stage in the House and in another place. I hope that the House will feel that we should agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, especially as I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Sta.-Wing Committee. Incidentally, I am ass fired that I did not miss much.
Here we are dealing with an actual offender. A person has committed an offence on the road and has been served with a ticket, which is the equivalent of a monetary penalty. He may agree to accept the ticket and forfeit the penalty for committing the offence. The Minister has told us that that is not an offence at all and that it should not be quoted as an offence against that individual in the event of a subsequent appearance in court. Frankly, I am unable to follow that line of reasoning.
The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds further and quotes the case of another person who rejects the ticket and decides to defend himself in court. If during the course of the proceedings an admission about the previous affair is made by the individual concerned, then that conviction would be regarded

as one set against his record. If it is not mentioned at all by the individual, then it will not be referred to. So we may have a person who accepts the ticket and forfeits the monetary penalty and another who appears before a court, is convicted and fined, and it is quite possible that in the event of subsequent prosecutions these would not be regarded as convictions.
Frankly, I wonder whether we are going to relax the law for other offences against society to the same extent. In this case, whether we like it or not, we are creating a very dangerous precedent. I can very well visualise other sections of the administration of the law demanding similar concessionary relaxations in legislation or the enforcement of the law in general if concessions of this nature are made.
Would the Minister explain why he was in such a hurry to accept the Amendment from the Lords? Incidentally, I spent most of the afternoon listening to Minister after Minister accepting the guidance of the Lords. I wonder whether the Prime Minister might consider that attitude in connection with his great problem, because, whether one likes it or not, it seems to me—especially as a member of another Standing Committee in which we urged Amendment after Amendment on the Minister and Amendment after Amendment was rejected—that we have the satisfaction of finding not only that in another place some of our Amendments were agreed to but that this afternoon they are approved by the Minister and recommended to this House.
Surely, therefore, if we are serious about controlling our roads we must be serious about enforcing penalties. Does the Minister realise that the time has arrived when a greater discipline must be imposed on all road users because our roads and our road programmes are hopelessly incapable of meeting the demands of twentieth century traffic. That calls for the imposition of greater discipline on all road users. Yet we find the Minister rushing about almost breaking his neck this afternoon to accept an Amendment designed not to impose greater discipline on the road users but to relax discipline. I honestly feel that we are taking a step in a backward direction. I wonder whether


when the Minister came to the conclusion that the Lords Amendment was one worthy of recommendation to this House he bore in mind that we require a more effective discipline for road users today and not a relaxed discipline?

Mr. Ede: This is undoubtedly a very difficult matter in view of the line that the Government have adopted. As a practising magistrate for thirty-seven years, I know only one similar provision, and that is with regard to the non-payment of the excise licence on a motor car. When it is reported that a car has been discovered without a current excise licence in force the county council, or county borough council, as the case may be, can suggest to the offender that he should pay what is called a mitigated penalty. The council considers what the appropriate figure is. It is generally less than what it thinks it would get if the case went before a magistrate. The offender has the option of paying it or not. There may be other cases; no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will vouchsafe that there are others, but it is the only one that I have met.
I have heard prosecutions in these cases. I have not adjudicated upon them because most of the time that I was a magistrate I was also a member of a county council and it was, therefore, inadvisable—though I think I was not prevented from doing so—for me to adjudicate. But I have recollections in those cases of hearing it said that the defendant was offered a mitigated penalty or that he had had a mitigated penalty inflicted upon him on two or three previous occasions, and the local authority had come to the conclusion that it was about time he had it brought home to him that he ought to comply with the law.
I find some difficulty in thinking that this complete exemption from any publicity for having committed an offence should be granted to a person who has committed an offence. If I am right about what happens with regard to the mitigated penalty for not taking out an excise licence, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell me why the Government thought it desirable to set a precedent in this case that

was not followed by some Government in the past when the mitigated penalty was arranged.

Mr. Benn: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies I should like to raise two points. The first is the case of the man who is being taken to court for the first time. He has left his car somewhere, has got a ticket, strongly resents the ticket he has received and is take to court and prosecuted by the police for non-payment. In other words, he has pleaded not guilty; that is why the case has gone to court. In that case, it cannot matter a bit that it is mentioned that he has not paid the ticket fine. Indeed, it helps him in a way. It is part of his argument why he should never have received the ticket in the first place.
The second case is that of the persistent offender. It may be found that the Amendment creates a differentiation between people who have a record of offences which they know they have committed. There are the people with guilty records who have paid their ticket fines and there are the people who have resisted tickets, have chosen to fight the case and have lost. If a man pays ten ticket fines and not the eleventh and comes to court, the court will have no cognisance of the ten earlier offences. However, for the sake of argument—I admit that it is not very likely—let us suppose that a man feels that he has been wrongly convicted ten times, having fought every one of the cases, and also fights the eleventh prosecution. There will be records of his previous convictions on the ten summonses.
Therefore, the position which we have created, in so far as we have created a new situation at all, is that the persistent offender who was certainly guilty gets away with it whereas the persistent offender who claims that he was innocent and chose to stand on his rights and fight the arguments in the courts suffers. In those cases we are putting a penalty upon pleas of innocence which is incompatible with the object of the ticket system. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear that point up.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)


need not feel that we are blindly following the Amendments of the Lords in this matter. Indeed, the discussions in another place may well have been inspired to a great extent by those that we had in Standing Committee. He did not take part, as far as I remember, in our earlier proceedings on this Bill, and therefore he will perhaps allow me to remind him that in instituting this standard penalty procedure we are, in the main, breaking new ground. The nearest that we have to a precedent is the kind of thing mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the compounding by a local authority of offences relating to failure to pay a car Excise licence.
As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on Second Reading, there is a similar provision for Customs offences dating back to 1825. Thus, in instituting a procedure for compounding offences, we are not doing something new, but we are making a new departure in providing for the service of a ticket offering, as I said on the second Amendment which we discussed, the chance to pay or in the alternative to incur a liability to prosecution.
We have all been at pains in that departure—certainly the Government have—to ensure that the compounding of the offence by payment of the fixed penalty shall not amount to a conviction, and that a person who compounds the offence in that way shall not be under the fear that by doing so he will be referred to in court on some later occasion as having been previously convicted. If we are not agreed upon that then it raises difficulties in the mind of any Member about this Amendment. I thought, however, that we were all agreed upon it. Certainly when the Bill went to the Lords it seemed that we were, and their Lordships are agreed upon it. The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Home Secretary, was right to move a Government Amendment in another place to put this matter right. The right hon. Member for South Shields asked me why we were creating a precedent by writing this into the Bill. As we are making a new departure to the extent which I have mentioned, and one which affects so many people in our highly motorised society, it is right that we should put the matter beyond doubt.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), with that great sublety of mind which we now associate with him, at any rate in motoring matters, challenged me to say why one type of persistent offender should be dealt with differently from another type. In order to illustrate his case he over-simplified the position that is likely to arise in practice. As I have said, we shall not allow people to become too persistent. When I say "we" I mean, of course, that the Government do not expect that the traffic wardens and the police will allow people to become too persistent in their use of the opportunities of compounding offered by the ticket system, because when it seems that somebody is getting into the habit of doing so he will be prosecuted.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: How will the warden know whether the owner of a car parked too long in the wrong place has, in the past, been a persistent offender or a persistent ticketee or not? Is he to be supplied with a black list? Are we to have a roll of people who have paid fines in this way and those who have not, and how many times?

Mr. Renton: That is a fair point, more especially as the ticket is to be fixed to and will relate to the vehicle and not to the motorist or the driver or the owner. Nevertheless, both police officers and wardens have eyes and are trained to use them. There will be people whose faces they will become accustomed to, and if they find that a certain person has become a persistent offender they will stop wasting time sticking tickets on his vehicle and will bring him to court.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is advising motorists to commit their offences in different parts of London or Edinburgh, as the case may be, so as to avoid this risk.

Mr. Renton: Hardly a law is passed by this House which some people do not find a way of getting round. Indeed, it sometimes causes the House the trouble of making further legislation. We believe that this is a reasonably cast-iron system because the ticket is related to the vehicle. I acknowledge that it is only in those cases where the offender who is persistent becomes known to the


police or to the traffic warden—as he will do if he is really persistent—that what I have said about offenders will apply.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we are doing this because we live in a highly motorised civilisation. We also live in a highly burglarised civilisation. Why not apply this to burglars?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman treated this point seriously enough. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) of being extremely subtle, but my hon. Friend asked a straightforward question. Do I understand that if a man pays a £2 fine and does not bother to go to court, the records are not kept, but that if he decides that a grave injustice is being done and each time he is served with a ticket he goes to court and fights the case, then this is recorded as a conviction against him?
We want justice to be done. I am all against the persistent offender, the character who gets into so much trouble on the roads, but we must be fair and make people understand that there is no real difference between getting a ticket and paying the fine at once and going to court to put one's case, but that the principle is that if he feels that he has not committed an offence he has the right to argue in court.
One of the dangers in taking a case to court, as I see it, is that where a ticket has been served by a warden or a policeman, then to a very large extent the man is condemned before he gets to court. I have argued this point before and I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not like the trend of it. We have the position in which a man is told "Pay up and have no record or go to court and have a record."

Mr. S. Silverman: The longer this discussion goes on the more puzzled I get. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman made his reply I thought that I agreed with him. It seemed to me that the point was simple enough. As he himself said at the beginning of his speech, what everyone wanted was to secure that the system of wardens and notices, now that we have decided upon it—some of us reluctantly—should work.
To make it work, it is suggested that when a man recognises that he has transgressed and has committed an offence against the regulations, and that he is at fault, and is prepared to concede that he has done so when his attention is called to it by a ticket being put upon his vehicle, and therefore agrees to pay a compounded penalty, that shall be the end of the matter for all purposes. If, on a subsequent occasion, he feels that he is being wrongly accused and does not accept the opinion of the warden that an offence has been committed and exercises his right to go to court to defend himself, but is nevertheless convicted, he shall not be penalised by having not made a lot of fuss on previous occasions when he knew perfectly well that he was in the wrong.
All that seems perfectly simple so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), if he will forgive me for saying so, somewhat confused the issue by saying that that created unfairness, in that a man who never admitted that he was wrong and who went to the court every time and was convicted every time would somehow or other be worse treated than a man who, when he was in the wrong, frankly admitted it. He is quite right, but I cannot see what can be wrong with that.
If a man chooses to contest an accusation which is made against him, he knows perfectly well that if he does not satisfy the court that the warden was wrong, he will be convicted, and that is a risk which he voluntarily assumes. If he goes to court and shows that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the court that he was guilty, he gets away with it and there is no conviction and there is no penalty, and there ought not to be. But if he fails and the prosecution discharges the onus, which is always on it, of proving him guilty, he has had his chance and has failed and the conviction is made and there is no reason why it should not be used against him on subsequent occasions.
Up to that point, I was on the side of the Government, but then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be two classes of convicted offenders.

Mr. Renton: I was at pains to stress that the compounding of an offence by


the serving of a fixed penalty notice did not amount to a conviction. It is a compounding.

Mr. Silverman: As a question of semantics, the hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously quite right and I would not contest that, but he said something which justified the comment which I made. He said that the warden would be entitled to use his own discretion and to determine whether a particular person, or driver of a particular vehicle, was a persistent offender or not. In order to decide whether he was a persistent offender or not, the warden will have regard not to any convictions in court but to the question of how many times in the past that person has confessed that he was wrong. The hypothesis is that if the man confesses that he is wrong and pays up, that is not a conviction, and if he does it often enough and confesses every time and pays every time, then he becomes a persistent offender, although not a single one of the cases entitled him to regard it as a conviction.

Mr. Benn: That is a persistent confessor, which is a different thing.

Mr. Silverman: The man has to be a persistent irregular practitioner of the regulations before he can be put in that position, and, ex hypothesi, he is not an offender at all.
The whole purpose of this provision is to encourage people not to make a fuss and to pay up when they are wrong. The encouragement to them to do that is to say, "Do not think that by admitting it and paying up you are building yourself a bad character." If we are to say, "You are building yourself a bad character", then the inducement not to make a fuss and to pay up when in the wrong has been taken away. It is that which worried me about the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
He must have it one way or another. Either the fixing of a ticket and the paying of a compounded penalty is to be the end of the matter for all purpose or it is not. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways, as he pretended. I hope that he will make it perfectly clear that the wardens are not to be given any discretion of that kind to discriminate between man and man.

Those of us who have been practising in police courts for many years—and the hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly one of them in his time—know perfectly well that policemen and wardens are just as human as motorists and just as likely to take likes and dislikes and just as likely to have prejudices and just as likely to have favourites.
If the warden is given power to decide for himself whether a particular person is the kind of man who ought to be given an option of a ticket or prosecution to conviction in the court, having regard either to his knowledge of the man or any previous habit or past conduct, we will completely destroy the confidence of the public in what can be a very delicate and difficult operation of a wholly new branch of the law. This system will not work unless the public has confidence in it. If the public loses confidence in the warden, as it has largely lost confidence in these matters in the police—

Mr. Hay: Mr. Hay indicated dissent.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friends if he does not know it. I do not say that it is the case everywhere, or that it is on a wide scale, but everybody knows that there has been a considerable loss of confidence in the police in motoring cases. If we do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, we shall produce in the public—may be quite unfairly—a great deal of lack of confidence in the wardens and the system, and in that case the whole scheme will break down.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 36, at end insert:
(b) In subsection (2) the words 'before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or' and the words whichever event last occurs' shall be omitted.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment suitably adapts the Amendment which has just been made to


Clause 1 (2) to meet the needs of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(TRAFFIC WARDENS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 32, after "sixty" insert:
, not being an order authorising the employment of a traffic warden for the purposes of section one of this Act in so far as it relates to a vehicle's obstructing a road,

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment is that traffic wardens will not be able to enforce the law relating to obstruction by means of the fixed penalty procedure or ticket system until a proposal to empower them to do so has been approved by affirmative Resolution in either House of Parliament.
The Amendment gives statutory effect to undertakings given by my noble Friend in another place and by me in this House, that the first order prescribing the functions of traffic wardens to be made under Clause 2 (3) would not empower the wardens to make use of the procedure for offences of obstruction. This is the fulfilment of an undertaking which was given in response to pressure in both Houses.

Mr. Benn: We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment, which does two very important things. It safeguards the right of the Minister to bring forward a plan to extend the powers of the wardens for which, if the traffic situation in London gets any worse, he will probably soon have to ask. At the same time, it safeguards the rights of the House to review what may be very important advances in the status of traffic wardens beyond the automatic ticket offences to something involving judgment more like that normally exercised by a constable. I do not think that one can say more than that this new procedure of the affirmative Resolution to provide an extension of responsibilities in this way will, in the judgment of myself and some of my hon. Friends, have to be brought into operation before very long.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—MISCELLANEOUS AMEND-MENTS AS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PARKING PLACES AND TRAFFIC SCHEMES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 30, after "area" insert:
nor to an order made under the said Act of 1960 revoking or varying an order so made and confirmed".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be for the general convenience of the House if we discussed, also, the Amendment in page 16, line 31.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Hay: Clause 11 contains a number of miscellaneous Amendments as to the powers of local authorities to institute parking places and what we call general schemes of traffic control. Subsection (8), which these Amendments seek to amend, contain provisions which make it clear that when a local authority is producing a general scheme of traffic control certain protective provisions contained in Sections 26 and 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, are not to apply.
I call these protective provisions, because, as the opening words of the subsection makes clear, they are intended to insure that when either parking places are instituted, or waiting and loading and unloading is restricted in a road, access to premises must be preserved.
In agreeing to subsection (8) at an earlier stage of the Bill, we have already approved the general principle that when a local authority makes a general scheme of traffic control these protective provisions shall not apply. In precisely the same way, where the road affected is a trunk road, again they are not to apply. Those are the concluding words of subsection (8).
At a later stage of the proceeding on the Bill in another place it was discovered that there was some doubt about the procedure which would arise when what was being done was not to make an order of a general scheme of traffic control, but to vary or revoke it once it had been made.
Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt in the matter, and to ensure that


any scheme which is made can work properly and be corrected as experience shows it to be necessary, these two comparatively simple though complicated locking Amendments were passed in another place. I hope that we can agree with them.

Mr. Benn: Does the Amendment, or the Amendment associated with it, deal with the disc system?

Mr. Hay: Mr. Hay indicated assent.

Mr. Benn: It was agreed by the Minister of Transport that to facilitate the experimentation by local authorities of the disc system provision should be made in the Bill for it. I am not legally trained, but, as I understand, the Amendments permit the disc system to be introduced and followed elsewhere, consequential on that scheme. It occurs to me that we have in this part of the Bill, and in the Amendments, the weakness of attempting to proceed by legislating for detail, because the Bill now lays down simply tilt; disc system. The Amendments would make possible the experimentation of the disc system.
There are other techniques of traffic control. Indeed, quite recently I took up with the Ministry another machine which was brought to my notice. The machine prints tickets which can be glued on to a car instead of using parking meters. That would be a considerable economy.
Under the Bill as it stands, even with thy; Amendments, it will not be possible to experiment with anything but the limited type of disc system. I make the general complaint that if we insist, and if the Minister insists, on legislating in such great detail, he will make it more difficult, even though it is his intention to make it easier, for local authorities to approach these problems flexibly and to find other ways of solving the difficulties which confront them.

Mr. Dempsey: Will there be the fullest co-operation with local authorities on this matter? I am concerned with the position in Scotland. Local authority schemes must be submitted for approval by the Department. I cannot think of a set of circumstances arising which would necessitate limiting the prerogative of to al authorities to the extent mentioned in the Amendment, because before a

local authority can proceed with any arrangement, or with any plan or scheme, such a scheme or arrangement has to be approved in general, and approved in particular, before the Department in Scotland will consider granting power to the local authority to carry out its proposals. I recognise that it might be necessary to have this legislation, but will there be the fullest cooperation between local authorities and the central Government in the application of this so-called Amendment?
Local authorities endeavour to improve their towns without antagonising the Government Department concerned. I realise that on certain occasions it is necessary for the Government to take action because of the need for monetary control, but it is difficult to see the need for the proposed Amendment. I suppose that the Government have arrived at the conclusion that the Amendment would provide the necessary safeguards, but surely a local authority, when considering road access and parking places, would not approve a plan which would in any way restrict the smooth and easy working of such services. A local authority is not likely to introduce a scheme which would hamper traffic, yet we are here taking steps to make sure that a local authority does not pursue a policy which would inconvenience the swift movement of traffic and other services.
I am a former member of a local authority. I hope that the Minister will assure me that there is no intention on the part of the Ministry to cut the activities of local authorities, and that he does not intend to dissuade local authorities from proposing plans which they hope the Government will accept. I hope that the Ministry will not try to discourage local authorities from dealing with their problems in the meticulous fashion with which they deal with them now. I also hope that the Ministry will not prevent local authorities from playing their part in insuring the smooth working of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
When one sees Amendments of this nature, one wonders if the Department is suspicious that local authorities will not be inclined to co-operate to the full with the Government. They always do, but they must be guided by local needs,


and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the great work which local authorities do on a voluntary basis. I hope that he will assure me that the object of the Amendment is to ensure close co-operation between local authorities and the Government, and that it is not the intention to antagonise or dissuade local authorities from performing their functions.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I hope that I can straight away disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) of some of the ideas that are apparently there now. If he will study the Bill and, in particular, this and the succeeding Clauses, he will see that, far from curtailing or restricting the powers of local authorities in these matters, it is doing precisely the opposite. Not only are we giving local authorities extended powers but, in many cases, we are taking away checks and fetters which, at the moment, prevent them from fully acting in their own areas as they wish. This Amendment is intended to deal with a Clause that itself removes an impediment from local authority actions.
As I tried to explain earlier, the whole point of this subsection is to enable local authorities to bring into force a general scheme of traffic control in certain streets in their areas, but no longer to be hindered in doing so by those protective provisions, which go back for some years, in the interests of frontagers to the streets. This is a matter we have discussed before, and upon which the House has decided. I need not go over the arguments. All that we are trying to do is to ensure that these impediments do not operate when what is sought to be done is to vary or revoke an order already made under subsection (8).
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). First, it is true that the disc experiment is involved. I was careful to avoid referring specifically to that experiment in my earlier remarks because the disc system is only part of the sort of thing that can be done by a local authority under a general system of traffic control. It is true that under

Clause 11 (3) parking meters in off-street parking places and the disc experiment are authorised for local authorities outside London. That provision is closely tied up with the extended powers we are giving in subsection (2), which allow for general schemes of traffic control.
I should like to give an example of the way in which the Amendment will work in connection with the disc experiment. If a local authority wanted to extend a disc order by authorising parking in an additional street where parked vehicles might 'be held to cause some interference or inconvenience to the premises in the street, it might be impossible for it to do so by way of a variation order if this Amendment were not made.
It is true that in this House we may be a little too careful to write out the minutiae of Bills but, on the whole, that is a good fault, and it is probably better to try to do the thing properly than to leave the matter at large and allow people to litigate, as often happens.

Mr. Ede: It is not a fault; it is a virtue.

Mr. Hay: It is a matter of semantics. I chose to refer to it as something of a fault that we should try to legislate in great detail. I hope that with the explanation I have given of what we are trying to do the House will agree to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 20, at end insert:
(11) An order made by the council of a county district by virtue of the last foregoing subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by them and confirmed by the Minister, and the provisions which, by virtue of subsection (8) of this section, do not apply to an order made by virtue of the last foregoing subsection shall also not apply to an order made under this subsection.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is similar in its intentions to the two that we have just been discussing. Those dealt with the powers of local authorities to amend or revoke orders made under subsection (8). Subsection (10) provides for the making


of general schemes of traffic control, but only by small non-county boroughs or urban districts with populations of less than 20,000. Under the provisions of Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, such non-county boroughs or urban districts are prevented from making such an order, and subsection (10) of this Clause provides that where a small local authority of that kind wants to introduce a general scheme of traffic control the county council may delegate to it the right to make an order under Section 26, so that it may then make an order jointly under that power and the power it already possesses under Section 81.
Subsection (10) also provides that the Minister of Transport may delegate to such a non-county borough or urban district the right to make such an order as respects trunk roads, which belong to the Minister of Transport.
Because, in cases like this, an order under the powers of Section 26 will not be made by the local authority specified under that Section but, instead, by a non-county borough or urban district to which the powers have been delegated, it seems to us that the power to amend or revoke given by Section 27 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, would not apply. The Minister would have power under that subsection to amend or revoke any such order, but neither a non-county borough nor the county council which had given it delegated powers would have any power to amend or revoke the original order. This was a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation, which we wanted to try to put right.
The new subsection was introduced in another place and provides that any order made by a non-county borough or urban district by virtue of subsection (10) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by it, and confirmed by the Minister, in the same way as the original order made under subsection (10). It also provides that what I have referred to as the protective provisions relating to access in Sections 26 aril 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, shall not apply any more than they did in the case of the original order.
Briefly, the result of the Amendment is that these small local authorities will have power to amend or revoke an order made under subsection (10) in almost exactly the same way as with an order

made under subsection (8). In both cases amending orders made by the local authority which made the original order will be free from the protective provisions of Sections 26 and 81.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 29, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert:
under or by virtue of subsection (2), (10) or (11)".

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. Its intention can be explained simply by saying that it seeks to ensure that the procedure regulation which the Minister will be making under Section 29 will cover orders for general schemes of traffic control made under subsection (10), to which I have already referred, and Amendments to those orders made under the new subsection (11).

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 26 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. In subsection (4) of section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the words 'if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours' shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As this Clause has been the subject of a certain amount of apprehension and misunderstanding, it may be as well if I briefly explain what it sets out to do.
Under the existing law, which is contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, local autihorities have very wide powers to make orders regulating traffic. In respect of orders imposing bans on loading and unloading, however, the powers of local authorities are subject to one very important restriction, which is, in effect, that they cannot ban loading and unloading for more than six hours in any given period of twenty-four hours. I have already referred to this restriction in a debate on a previous Amendment. The present Clause proposes to sweep


away this restriction, which is now contained in Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In consequence, if the House decides to agree with the Lords in the Amendment the power of local authorities to make orders restricting loading and unloading will be unfettered.
At first sight this may seem quite arbitrary, but it has to be remembered that we have always taken the view that local authorities should be trusted to act with discretion in the exercise of powers of this kind. In case they do not, I would remind the House that the Minister of Transport already has wide powers to revoke, vary or amend orders of this kind. The provision was inserted as a safeguard when the Act of 1956 was going through Parliament, and the House may be interested to know that, so far as we can trace, no Minister of Transport has ever been called upon to exercise this revisionary power.
The limitation on bans on loading and unloading to a maximum of six hours in any twenty-four, as the House probably realises, has some rather serious snags. It stops local authorities from establishing clearways, an experiment which we are trying out with increasing success on the open roads throughout the country, even where such clearways are desirable, if there is any chance that the restriction could impede anyone's right of access, which a clearway order, quite obviously, might do. Further, experience in London, where there is no legal limitation on loading and unloading bans, has shown that it is often more effective, in the interests of traffic, to impose restrictions of this kind over a short length of road for a long period rather than over a long length of road for a short period. This is how we work, for example, in Mayfair at the moment. As the law stands at present, however, local authorities outside London cannot follow the example which my right hon. Friend has been setting in London, because it is in London that he is the traffic authority.
We therefore came to the conclusion that we should accept this addition to the Bill. I think that local authorities can be trusted to act reasonably. After all, local authorities are responsible to their ratepayers, and it is quite often the case that the bigger ratepayers are the

people who own commercial and business premises that will be substantially affected by the loading and unloading bans, so that there are already means to check cases of any excess or abuse of that power.
I realise that some hon. Members, and indeed some commercial interests concerned, have legitimate apprehensions about what would happen under this Clause. I have already referred to the powers which my right hon. Friend has to revoke, vary or to amend local authority traffic regulation orders, but the difficulty about this is that he cannot intervene until the order has actually been made, and it is possible that by that time some damage might have been done.
We have given a great deal of thought to what should be done to safeguard the legitimate interests of commercial operators. What we propose is this. We shall try to modify the procedure regulations which local authorities have to observe when they make traffic regulation orders. When they are making these orders, they will have to comply with the code which the Minister will lay down in a Statutory Instrument, and which we will call the procedure regulations. The exact details of these regulations must be a matter for discussion between my right hon. Friend's Ministry and the associations which are representative of the interests principally concerned in this business.
What we will propose to do, if this Clause is adopted in the Bill and if the Bill receives the Royal Assent in this form, is to consult with the appropriate associations on a formula on the following lines. If I may quote from the proposals which we have it in mind to make in the formula, they run as follows. Where a local authority proposes to institute a ban on loading and unloading on any particular road or any particular area for more than six hours in any twenty-four, that is to say, anything beyond its powers under the existing law, and objections are made to the order and are not resolved, the local authority will be required to hold a public inquiry, and, further, will have to send to the Minister of Transport a copy of the inspector's report of the inquiry at least a month before it actually makes the order.
I think that will ensure that my right hon. Friend will have ample notice of any possible misuse of these powers by


local authorities. Frankly, I shall be very surprised indeed if my right hon. Friend ever has to intervene, except, possibly, in some quite exceptional case, and I hope that the House will accept my assurance that safeguards of this nature, in our view, will be sufficient to protect the proper interests of those who make their livelihood from commercial transport. There are a number of other cases. There is the case which was mentioned only this afternoon about the building trade, which might wish to load or unload building materials on a site. This would also be adequately covered by the formula which we have in mind.
I regret having taken a long time to explain the new Clause, which is a difficult one, and on which some of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment. I hope that in view of my explanation of what the Clause sets out to do, and in view of the safeguards which we intend to bring in by way of incorporation in the regulations, the House will agree that the Clause as it now stands represents a logical and sensible step forward.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: I must first declare my interest as a commercial vehicle operator myself. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the assurances which he has given, because as he amended Bill came from another place it was obvious that it was wholly unacceptable, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. Having said that we should have a right of access under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and having provided that these bans were to be allowed for twenty-four hours, the situation was bound to be unsatisfactory. We wanted a safeguard whereby the Minister, if a local authority went mad, could intervene before the order was made rather than after. Having had that assurance from my hon. Friend, I am now perfectly certain that nobody will have any cause to worry in the future.

Mr. Mellish: I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear explanation which he has given of their Lordships' new Clause, and for the assurances which he has give n. I ought to tell him that we on this side of the House felt rather like

his hon. Friend and thought that if there was one Amendment which we were likely to have a row about, it would be this one. I am most grateful that the hon. Gentleman has seen the matter in this way.
When we talk of restrictions on the roads—and we were talking earlier about the ticket system—too many people tend to believe that the roads are for the benefit of the private motorist. It is often forgotten in this House that thousands of our fellow countrymen earn their living on the roads, and they are among the finest drivers. Most motorists will agree that they get more courtesy and understanding from the lorry drivers than from anybody else, and these restrictions very often make their job very difficult.
Arguments have been made about loading and unloading on our highways, and I see the logic of them, because so often it does create congestion, particularly on main roads. I emphasised in Committee and I repeat now that this is where we often see a mutual understanding between the police on the one hand and the lorry drivers on the other. A sensible policeman will always recognise the wretched plight of the lorry driver, and will usually say "Don't be too long here; get away", and will try to be co-operative. I wonder whether the ticket system will continue that kind of relationship. I can assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the trade unions will welcome the new Clause. I hope that they will taken advantage of the good will that has been expressed here and that, through their organisations, the Minister will be made aware of any sound objections which they may have. Therefore, on this side of the House we support him in what he is now proposing.

Mr. Robert Mathew: I also should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for having explained this new Clause so very clearly. I am sure it will do much to dispel the apprehensions which were, in my opinion, wrongly expressed both by the road haul age business and at first be some of the trade unions concerned.
Throughout the country, we have traffic conditions in many cities and towns which are every bit as grave as in London, and, as the Joint Parliamentary


Secretary has explained, this new Clause will bring the powers of the local authorities in these cities and towns broadly into line with the powers already existing in the London area under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In particular, difficulties have occurred near road junctions where there was a suitable alternative access and where lorry drivers could unload in a suitable side street. I am sure that the safeguards so clearly explained have dispelled those fears and I should like—

Mr. Mellish: No one on this side of the House would defend a lorry driver who failed to take his vehicle to the rear of a factory if that were possible or who failed to unload it out of the way of the traffic if he were able to do so. But the vast majority of lorry drivers are not able to take advantage of such facilities and have to unload in the main road. They cannot help that, it is just how things are.

Mr. Mathew: I agree with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
I wish to add my welcome to the Amendment and also to say to my hon. Friend, the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), whose constituency is in the best county in England, that we must assume that local authorities act reasonably. We know from experience that almost always local authorities do act reasonably but occasionally insanity overtakes them as it also, from time to time, affects certain Ministries.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As a representative of a Middlesex constituency I cannot allow to go unchallenged the claim that Devon is the best county.
There has been perturbation about this matter and the question of loading and unloading is an extremely difficult one. The other day when I was walking up Piccadilly I saw a new site being developed, and it would have been impossible to carry out that development without having a lorry standing in the roadway outside the site for considerable periods, even though we all want to see Piccadilly a clearway for most of the day.
If one motors up the Edgware Road in the morning, one sees furniture being brought into the large number of furnishing stores in that road and other lorries

being used to collect the empties from the public houses. One cannot go more than a few hundred years in most main roads at certain times of the day without seeing a number of lorries whose drivers are engaged in perfectly lawful business loading and unloading, and therefore it will be extremely difficult for any local authority to be ruthless in this respect and to declare that the main streets must be entirely free of traffic loading and unloading for long periods.
The safeguards mentioned by my hon. Friend are reassuring, but I was not sure what he meant by the inquiry being held by local authorities. Is the inspector to be appointed by the Ministry of Transport or will he be a local inspector? Will the inquiry be under the control of the Ministry or is it a matter for the local authority to report back to the Ministry? We should like to get that clear.

Mr. Ede: I was proposing to ask the same question. From what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, it was clear that he was giving us only a sketch of what is in the mind of the Minister. Who would appoint what he calls the inspector? I realise that it would be wrong to attempt to get too many details from the hon. Gentleman at this stage, but will the matter have to come before the House for confirmation when the Ministry has drafted a scheme? Secondly, when the scheme is made, will the local authority have some guidance in the Ministry document about the sort of person who will hold the inquiry? It may be an engineer or, to use the new phrase, a "traffic engineer", but will sufficient guidance be given to the council regarding its share of the scheme and so warrant the action of those hon. Gentlemen oppostie who have decided not to move the Amendment which they had down to this Lords Amendment? We wish to now something mare than the vague sketch which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given to us.

Mr. Hay: By leave of the House, may I thank hon. Members for the welcome which they have given to what we intend to do in relation to a somewhat difficult matter and in the light of the Amendment made in another place. I can clear up the anxieties and doubts which may exist about the holding of the inquiry


and the appointment of the inspector. These matters are to be dealt with fully, and I trust comprehensively, in the procedure regulation to which I have referred. I have already seen a draft of the procedure regulation. We have produced a draft letter which will go out to all the representative organisations should the House agree to this Amendment. If the Bill receives the Royal Assent tomorrow, as we hope, the letter will be issued and we shall take account of the suggestions and comments which are made.
When the regulations are made, I am advised that they are laid before Parliament and are subject to Prayer and the negative procedure so that there will be ample opportunity for the House to review what we suggest in the regulations and to comment on them. The inspector will be appointed by the local authority, but it is intended that we shall have a panel of suitable people from which the inspector will be appointed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(CHARGES FOR REMOVING AND STORING VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 30, let.ve out paragraph (c) and insert:
(c) in relation to a vehicle removed by a pet son other than as aforesaid from a parking place provided or controlled by a local authority, means that authority;
(d) in relation to a vehicle removed by a person other than as aforesaid from a parking place in the London Traffic Area designated under section thirty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, means the local authority (being the council of the county borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of the metropolitan borough) within whose area the parking place is situate;

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor drafting Amendment. A contingency emerged during the preparation of the order and regulations which will have to be made under this Clause and under Clause 15. By virtue of subsection (4, c) and the definition of "competent authority" in Clause 15 (4) the power of a local authority to make

a charge for the removal of a vehicle from an on-street parking place in the London traffic area as well as its power to sell a vehicle which appears to have been abandoned, is limited to local authorities which provide or control such parking places. In the London traffic area the Minister of Transport appoints on-street parking places other than those controlled by parking meters. He does so by regulations made under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
It could be argued that it was not the local authority which provided or controlled such parking places, but the Minister. In our view such local authorities ought to have power to remove vehicles which appear to have been abandoned on street parking places in the London traffic area and to recover the cost of removal and to sell or dispose of the vehicle. It was thought wise in another place to make this small amendment to this paragraph in subsection (4).

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(EFFECT OF REGULA TIONS UNDER S. 64 OF Rom) TRAFFIC ACT, 1960.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, at end insert new Clause "B":
B. No such provision contained in regulations made or having effect as if made under subsection (1) of section sixty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as imposes or varies requirements with respect to the braking systems with which motor vehicles must be equipped shall be taken, for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section, or of any other provision of the regulations, to be one relating to the construction of vehicles.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On this point I must stand in a white sheet. The House will recollect that at a very early stage in our discussions on the Bill we had to make strong suggestions to hon. Members that they should exercise a self-denying ordinance regarding the extension of the scope of the Bill. At that stage it appeared likely that if the scope of the Bill were widely extended from matters in the original draft, and if road safety and cognate matters were introduced, there might be a serious risk that we should lose the Bill altogether in view of the timetable


to which we were working. We therefore urged hon. Members not to extend the scope of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
In another place the Government had to swallow their own words and ask far the scope of the Bill to be extended because this new Clause became necessary. The problem we are up against is this. As the House knows, the vehicle testing scheme is due to start on 12th September. The standard which must be applied by the test, particularly in respect of brakes, is laid down in new amending Regulations which we have recently made to the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. Those Regulations themselves provide that certain standards must be complied with by all vehicles at all times and the new test will be conducted in respect of the amending regulations.
A risk we have to face when we are talking about brakes is that someone might claim that brakes are not part of the equipment of a vehicle, but part of its construction. The fact is that the statute law which governs the making of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations appears to require a standard to be laid down related only to the equipment and not to the construction of vehicles for the purposes of the test.
We were in this difficulty, that, although we ourselves were satisfied that brakes were part of the equipment of a vehicle and not part of its construction, there was a risk that after 12th September someone might go to a testing station with his car, have it failed because his brakes were wrong, and then take the matter to court, saying that our regulations were ultra vires, and that, therefore, his test certificate ought to have been issued. If the court then decided—and it is a possibility, in view of a recent case—that the brakes were not part of the equipment, but part of the construction, the new scheme would have been "bust" right open and we would be in great trouble. For that reason, we have to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to ask Parliament to enact this new Clause, which puts the matter beyond -any kind of doubt. I hope that with that explanation and apologies for having broken the advice I myself gave to the

House, the House will give us this new Clause.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is always plausible and, in a white sheet, he is irresistible. It would be a pity, however, if we passed this new Clause without comment. We have been told over the last four years that there were legal difficulties which prevented the implementation of the vehicle testing scheme. The scheme, when it comes in, will be a modest and a poor measure. It will make compulsory testing of vehicles over ten years old, but in other countries—in Germany for example—cars are tested every two years. We regard this as a poor scheme, but it has been delayed for four years because of this particular legal difficulty.
This is the only legislative change that it has been necessary to make to bring the scheme into operation. We have the Orders already on the Table of the House and they do not concern us here, but those Orders derive from legislation already passed by the House. The only legal difficulty which requires legislation was the one which is being corrected by this new Clause. It seems quite startling, and amazing, that this House should have to delay the implementation of the testing scheme for four years until a Bill on a quite different subject happened to come from the Department to the House.
We are all experimenting in traffic control, road safety, and everything else. I think that the lesson of this new Clause—which we on this side of the House warmly welcome—is that we must be prepared to accept from the Minister certain powers even if the House does not always know exactly for what they are needed. We must, of course, build into that the precaution of the affirmative Resolution. If we can get over the difficulty by the Department having greater powers to prevent a delay of this kind—which, on a statistical basis, must have cost many lives because it is known that the scheme will lead to a reduction in the number of deaths on the road—we ought, in future, to have enough powers in reserve to prevent such a thing happening.
I do not say this in a truculent spirit, but when we first saw the Bill we said that the Long Title was too tightly


drawn. We pleaded with the hon. Gentleman to widen the Title and the Financial Resolution so that it would have been possible for us to correct other anomalies and omissions which we thought existed in road traffic and road safety law. We should certainly have put them forward in a very constructive spirit. We would have brought them for ward in Committee and the Government would still have had the Bill by tomorrow, but they turned down our suggestion.
Now the hon. Gentleman comes along with a nice smile and a good case—and those two together are unbeatable—and says that we shall have to alter the Title. Without saying "I told you so", we feel tint there are lessons to be learned from this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be promoted in future, but, if we have another Bill from his Department I very much hope that there will be an opportunity to make the powers wide enough to deal with contingencies as they arise.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) quite appreciates that anything to do with motor vehicles has an effect on the law which makes the lane exactly contrary to what everyone else thinks it is. The ordinary person has always regarded brakes as part of the construction of the vehicle, but apparently legally they are part of the equipment. This little difficulty is not by any means the only difficulty in the testing of vehicles. There are all sorts

of guarantees of braking, standards of braking, and so on. From my experience of this matter I think that we ought to pass this Clause to put the matter right.

Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for the way in which he has received the new Clause. I thought it might be trying human nature a little hard to expect him to refrain from trying to rub our noses in it to some extent, but I am obliged to him.
Since he has asked about it, I should like to put on record that this is the only legislative change we have had to make before bringing in the testing scheme, if, by legislative change, we mean a change in Statute law, but there have been other changes in administrative and legislative arrangements. I can assure the House that we think that we have now got the thing absolutely right. I beg the House to consider what would have happened, and what an outcry there would have been—how triumphant some people outside who have been inveterate opponents of the vehicle testing scheme would have been—if it were discovered that there was a loophole or error which could have brought the scheme down. That is why I think that we are justified in bringing this forward and I am obliged for the way in which it has been received.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(REPLACEMENT OF BETTING ACT, 1853, ETC., BY NEW PROVISION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, at end insert:
and, without prejudice to section three of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, shall also not apply in relation to pool betting transactions.

7.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical drafting Amendment to eliminate a duplication which was inserted in error into the Bill during the Committee stage resulting in the restrictions on pool betting and the use of a place in connection therewith appearing in this Act and in the Act of 1934. This will eliminate one provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(AUTHORISATION AND REGIS-TRATION OF AGENTS BY BOOKMAKERS AND BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(aa) he has attained the age of twenty-one years; and".

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that, under the Bill, a principal bookmaker has to be aged 21 or over before he can receive a permit, that persons under the age of 18 may not be employed in betting transactions or in a licensed betting office, that it is illegal to effect betting transactions with a person under 18 and that a person under the age of 18 must not be employed as an agent.
This matter was debated in another place. It was suggested that, before a person could be employed as the registered agent of a bookmaker under Clause 7, he should be required to have attained the age of 21 rather than 18. It is my belief that, in practice, agents employed by principal bookmakers are almost invariably over this age, but it seems reasonable to the Government that

what is a fairly responsible position should be held by someone of an age equivalent to that of the principal bookmaker. It gives an added protection in regard to a matter about which the House has shown concern on previous occasions, namely, the protection of young people. This provision requires that an agent employed by way of business by a principal bookmaker under the relevant Clause of the Bill must have attained the age of 21.

Miss Alice Bacon: In general, I am against restricting the activities of young people between the ages of 18 and 21 and, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, it is sometimes rather difficult in practice to do it. Nevertheless, I regard this as a reasonable Amendment in that it means that young people between 18 and 21, while they might be employed in certain tasks inside a betting shop, will not be employed, I take it, as factory runners or agents in a factory or in other places.
I have one question. Is it the case now that it will be illegal for someone under 21 to take a bet outside the bookmaker's office, but that it will still be quite legal for anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 actually to take a bet inside the betting office? This seems to be an anomaly. In general, I think that we accept the Amendment, even though, as I said, it is sometimes difficult to restrict the activities of young people between the ages of 18 and 21.

Mr. Ede: I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), but I welcome generally the Amendment because I think it will add to what I am sure we all hope to establish, namely, that these people shall be responsible persons. To keep the age lower than 21 might mean that those who deal with this Bill after it becomes an Act will think that these were not positions requiring persons of some responsibility.

Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House, in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I can tell her that this provision applies only to those who are registered agents under Clause 7 of the Bill, factory runners as they were formerly described. The age of 18 will operate within the


betting office itself. This might appear to be an anomaly, but, at an earlier stage of the Bill, we discussed raising the age generally to 21, but that did not find favour with the Committee as a whole.
I think there is a difference between a person doing a routine job behind a counter and a person moving around a factory and contacting individuals. It is, therefore, logical to accept the difference provided for in the Amendment, which, while it does not go all the way to meet the views of those who think that young people should be completely isolated from this activity, does add a reasonable further protection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(CONDUCT OF LICENSED BETTING OFFICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 28, at end insert:
'(5) If, save in a licensed betting office or in such manner as may be prescribed on premises giving access to such an office, any advertisement is published—

(a) indicating that any particular premises ire a licensed betting office; or
(b) indicating where any such office may le found; or
(c) drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices

then, in the case of an advertisement in connection with the office or offices of a particular licensee, that licensee, and in every case any person who published the advertisement or caused or permitted it to be published, shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection to prove—

(i) that he did not know and had not reasonable cause to suspect that the advertisement was, and that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that it was not, such an advertisement as aforesaid; or
(ii) if he is charged by reason only of being a licensee that the advertisement was published without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publishing of any such advertisement in connection with his office or offices."

7. 45 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will be familiar with the terms of this Amendment because it is identical with one which appeared on

the Order Paper on Report earlier this year. Both on Report and in Committee, hon. Members expressed a variety of views, some taking the view that there should be no prohibition of advertising whatever, some taking the view that the new licensed betting offices should be allowed to advertise, others seeking a complete prohibition of all advertising extending to credit bookmakers who at present are permitted to advertise.
After the debate on Report, my right hon. Friend and I said that we would consider the matter further. It was discussed in another place. Both sides in another place supported the Amendment which had been moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). Further, my right hon. Friend felt that there was merit in accepting what is admittedly a compromise Amendment in the sense that it will prohibit the advertising of a licensed betting office. In other words, those bookmakers operating on credit who have hitherto been allowed to advertise will be allowed to go on doing so, on the ground that a credit bookmaker cannot operate unless he is allowed to advertise.
The licensed betting office has not the same need to advertise. It is a place of business to which the clients will usually resort without the need for advertising. I think it is logical to differentiate between the two types of bookmaking in the sense that, if advertising for the licensed betting office is allowed, that would be liable to attract to the betting offices people who would not otherwise resort thereto. If advertising is prohibited in the way provided in this Amendment, those who habitually bet will be able to resort to the betting office without any difficulty, and those who might otherwise be induced to go there by a rather attractive advertisement may not be so attracted.
The argument is, I believe, somewhat similar to the argument which found favour in Committee regarding conditions in the betting office itself. I argued that the betting office was a place of business and must be sufficiently equipped to permit that business to be transacted but it must not be equipped with facilities for music, dancing or other attractions so as to attract people, particularly the young, who would not


otherwise resort to it. There is a similarity in the arguments there.
I appreciate the argument against this particular provision, but it seems reasonable to restrict advertising which is not necessary and which might be abused and which, again, might be a cause of inducing young people to bet. As I say, this proposal found unanimous favour in another place, and, on balance, my right hon. Friend commends it to the House.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Speaking for myself, I am very glad that the Government have taken this course. A variety of views on the subject was expressed in Committee and there was a good deal of debate about it. In general, I think that we should all agree that there ought not to be any restriction on the advertising of legal facilities of any kind, but considerable feeling was expressed on the subject in various quarters.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is quite clear that, once betting offices are established, with the nature of their business clearly indicated, those who wish to resort to them will have no difficulty in finding them. If, on the other hand, they were permitted to advertise freely without any restriction, that would inevitably lead to a considerable encouragement of betting which there would not otherwise be. In my view, therefore, this is a very sensible compromise and, speaking for myself, I am glad that the Government have accepted the view put forward in another place.

Sir James Duncan: I do not want to argue or re-argue the case I put on Report, when I moved this Amendment originally. I am grateful to their Lordships for their action. The proceedings in another place were noticeable for the complete absence of division and unanimous support for this Amendment. I am very glad that the Government and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) have supported it here.

Mr. George Wigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on the support that he has had from another place. I had not intended to speak on this stage of the Bill, but this is a perfect example of our national feeling. This is complete

bunkum and hypocrisy. The Government reform the law by having betting offices, but we must not tell anyone where they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fletcher), with a masterpiece of logic which makes it clear where he derived it from, said that everyone knows where the betting office is and, therefore, we must not advertise it.
If the House is satisfied, I do not want to hold up the Bill. Every time I look at the Clause a blush of shame will spread over my face when I think that, once again, England, once the master of the free, has been subjected to another piece of Scottish hypocrisy.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I did not intend to take part in the debate, but something has just occurred which necessitates my intervention. I thought, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—I even mentioned it to him—that there was a little humbug about the Amendment. If people want to go to betting shops, they will soon find a way, without them being advertised. Merely to provide that they should not be advertised will not prevent people from getting to know about them.
But for my hon. Friend, having said that it is a typical piece of English humbug, then to put the blame on the Scots is a little more than I can understand or bear. Such an argument is so distorted that it is about as logical as the Amendment. While I agree with my hon. Friend that it may be a piece of humbug, his reasons for thinking that it is humbug are far from the truth.

Mr. John M. Temple: I think that the voice of England should be heard in support of the Amendment. I played a considerable part in Committee and on Report.
I want to answer the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who seems to be a professor of logic and a master of hypocrisy at one and the same time. I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and claim that England has had a full share in the Amendment, which will be for the benefit of the public. It will have the advantage of not encouraging betting. When we set out


on this Measure, we started with the object of making cash betting legal, but not with the object of encouraging cash betting in England.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR STREET BETTING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 34, leave out "or any subsequent".

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Would it be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 35?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) expressed a dislike for compromise. Therefore, it may well be that the Amendment will not find favour with him. It is a sincere endeavour to try to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), which they put forward both in Committee and on Report.
The present position in relation to penalties for street betting is that the maximum penalty for a first offence is a line not exceeding £10. For the second offence it is a fine not exceeding £20. For the third offence on summary conviction it is a fine of £30, or three months' imprisonment, and on indictment it is a fine of £50, or six months' imprisonment.
It was proposed to substitute in the Bill penalties of £100 for the first offence, £200 or three months' imprisonment for the second offence, and a similar penalty for the third and subsequent offences. There was to be no question of indictment. Therefore, the imprisonment provisions in the Bill are less harsh than they are under the existing law. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend and several hon. Gentlemen argued that they were in themselves excessive.
My hon. and learned Friend who dealt with this Amendment argued that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment was still necessary. We still subscribe to that view. It is my belief that the majority

of street bookmakers are at the moment trying to bring themselves within the ambit of the Bill and find premises. I believe that the vast majority will do so, but there may be a small minority who will persistently try to ignore the provisions of the Bill. Amongst them there may be some to whom the financial penalty itself may not be a deterrent. It is logic to retain a penalty of imprisonment.
With regard to the points made on previous stages, my right hon. Friend has suggested that, instead of making imprisonment available for the second offence, it will become available only for the third offence. It will be limited to three months, as it is at the moment on summary conviction. That may not entirely meet the views expressed by hon. Members. However, it is essential to retain some deterrent of imprisonment. I hope that it will not be necessary to use it, except on rare occasions, and that this compromise will commend itself even to the hon. Member for Dudley.

Miss Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman said that some of us thought that the penalties were very harsh. We adhere to that opinion. Nevertheless, in so far as the Amendment makes the penalties even a little less harsh, we agree with it. We still think that, even with the Amendment, the penalties for street betting are far heavier than they ought to be.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for the concession which has been made in another place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Report that this matter would be given further consideration. I am grateful that some concession has been made. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that perhaps it does not go all the way to meet some of the objections we had to imprisonment and which we expressed earlier. However, I am grateful to the Home Office that it has been able to make this compromise.

Mr. Ede: I, also, objected very strongly to the Clause from the moment it appeared in the Bill. I did so on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, on Report, and on Third Reading. I still regret that the penalties should be so high for an offence which


nobody, neither the perpetrator nor the people with whom he associates, regards as involving any moral turpitude.
We are dealing with a group of men to whom the Lord Chancellor bore this testimony in another place:
For the first eight years of my professional life, when practising in Liverpool, I largely had a criminal practice, as many young barristers have, and I appeared in very many cases involving either street bookmakers or betting house keepers. I cannot remember …it ever being suggested that these bookmakers, however illegally they acted, were defaulters and did not keep faith with their clients. In fact, their illegal position made it all the more necessary that there should not be any question of their defaulting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th July, 1960; Vol. 224, c. 924.]
All that the Government appear to have achieved is to have made the position of these men still illegal. Therefore, as and when they carry on their hazardous occupation, they will have more reason for not defaulting, which may be some gratification to their clients, who have never doubted their honesty.

Mr. Wigg: As I was associated with the efforts to get the Government to go even further than they have gone, I want to express my gratitude for the steps that they have taken. I also want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not opposed to a compromise. I am all for a compromise, provided that it takes account of the facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(BETTING WITH YOUNG PERSONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 20, at end insert:
(3) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section seven, and in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section sixteen, of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934 (which empower the licensing authority to refuse to grant or, as the case may be, to revoke a licence in respect of any track on the ground of a conviction of the applicant for or holder of the licence, or, where the applicant or holder is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof, for an offence under Part I of that Act) the reference to an offence under that Part of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to any offence under this section.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a very technical Amendment designed to facilitate the consolidation of the betting and gaming laws. I shall explain it if any hon. Member is in any doubt about it, but I assure the House that it is purely a drafting point

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that we may have some assurance that there will be consolidation at an early stage.

Mr. Vosper: By leave of the House. I give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17.—(GAMING MACHINES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 1, at end insert:
(aa) that not more than two gaming machines are made available for play in any one building or, where different parts of a building are occupied by two or more different persons, in the part or parts of the building occupied by any one of those persons; and

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a rather unusual Amendment in that it is an Amendment to a Clause that has never been discussed at any stage of the Bill. I think that it was the only Clause in that category, despite 25 meetings in Committee.
This Clause deals with gaming machines, more commonly known as fruit machines. The Royal Commission recommended that these machines should be prohibited completely, but the Government took the view that they should be legal in places where the public have no access. At no stage of the Bill in this House was that view challenged. There have been representations to my right hon. Friend and in another place that there was a danger that some form of racket might develop through the use of these machines. In the Bill there are already two safeguards in that the coin to be inserted in the machine is limited to 6d. and that the proceeds must not be devoted to private gain.
Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that certain promoters might wish to take advantage of the Clause to set up arcades, establishments or clubs devoted entirely to these machines. That was not the intention of the Government in inserting the Clause. Many clubs of all descriptions have illegally at the moment a fruit machine of this type. It was to


meet their genuine need that the Clause, despite the Royal Commission's advice, was inserted in the Bill. It was not intended that clubs should be devoted wholly to this purpose.
The Amendment provides a further safeguard that only two machines shall be allowed in any one club. I think that is a reasonable safeguard. So far as I can discover, there are few, if any, clubs that have more than that number at the moment and I do not think that anyone in genuine need at the moment is being of set by this provision.

Mr. Wigg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? He said that or cannot have more than one machine in any one club. That is not what the Amendment says. It says, "in any one building". I should like to be clear about this. It might create great difficulties. For example, the Government might want to install a fruit machine in the Commons and at the same time their Lordships might want one installed. Would this Amendment prevent that?

Mr. Vosper: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said or that I did not make myself clear. I thank that the words on the Amendment Paper are sufficiently clear in themselves to answer the hon. Gentleman. They are
…that not more than two gaming machines are made available for play in any one building…
except, of course, where different parts of the building are occupied by two or more different persons, when there may be more than two machines.
The special case raised by the hon. Gentleman in respect of this building would, I think, be a matter for the courts to determine and not for me. I think that the words are reasonably explicit in their intention that not more than two machines should be available in any one building, except where that building is occupied by more than one club. Then each club could have not more than two machines.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause.—(SAVING FOR DOMINOES AND CRIBBAGE ON LICENSED PREMISES ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 29, at end insert new Clause "A":
A.—(1) Section eighteen of this Act shall not apply to the playing of dominoes or cribbage

(a) on premises in respect of which there is for the time being in force a justices' on-licence granted under the Licensing Act, 1953, or a hotel certificate or public house certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959; or
(b) on premises in any district specified in Part 1 of the Ninth Schedule to the said Act of 1953 or in Part 1 of the Eighth Schedule to the said Act of 1959 which are being used for the sale on behalf of the Secretary of State of intoxicating or, as the case may be, exciseable liquor for consumption on those premises.

(2) The licensing justices for any licensing district within the meaning of the said Act of 1953, or the licensing court for any licensing area within the meaning of the said Act of 1959, may at any time, if in the case of any particular premises such as aforesaid situated within that district or area they think fit so to do, by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises to which the public have access as they consider necessary to secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gaming on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes.

(3) The justices or court aforesaid may at any time by a further order vary or revoke any previous order made under this section.

(4) An order under this section with respect to any premises shall come into force upon notice thereof being given—

(a) in the case of premises such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to the person who is for a time being the holder of the licence or certificate aforesaid in respect of those premises;
(b) in the case of premises such as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, to the Secretary of State,

and the justices or court shall send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; and, subject to any further order varying or revoking it, the order shall continue in force so long as the premises continue to be premises such as are mentioned in the said subsection (1).

(5) Section one hundred and sixty-six of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of that Act to the Isles of Scilly) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the functions of the licensing justices under


Part VII of that Act included a reference to the functions of those justices under this section."

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I have reason to believe that this Amendment will be acceptable to both sides of the House. It departs, of course, a long way from the Report of the Royal Commission, which recommended that no gaming should be allowed in public houses; in other words, a continuation of the existing state of affairs. The Government took the view that that was not logical, and was not likely to be acceptable or enforceable. In Committee, I moved a series of Amendments that went considerably beyond that to create what I hoped might be an acceptable and reasonable state of affairs.
In doing that, I was aware that two games which were played in public houses—dominoes and cribbage—were excepted from my Amendments. That was discussed on Report, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he accepted that these two games were played frequently in public houses but that, as they were not games of skill but games of skill and chance—and there could be no dispute about that—they were not covered by the Government Amendments. By this somewhat ingenious Amendment from another place, dominoes and cribbage have been brought into the Bill, and can be played in the bar of a public house—something which, I believe, will be acceptable.
However, one condition has been imposed, which is that the justices have power under subsection (2) to impose conditions if, in brief, the gaming on these games gets out of hand. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) suggested that this should be left to the licensing justices. The matter was discussed with the Magistrates' Association, which took the view, I think rightly, that this issue should be decided by Parliament. We have therefore written these two games into the Bill—the first and only two games to be named in the Bill—as games which may be played legally in the bar of a public house, in addition to those previously legalised in Committee as being games of skill. I think that it is

desirable to do this, as it is common knowledge that these games are played all over, generally for small stakes, and it is a practice which, while one might not want to encourage it, one should accept.

Miss Bacon: As the mover on Report of an Amendment to legalise the playing of dominoes in public-houses, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for facilitating in another place the passage of this new Clause. It means that people everywhere, who now have a harmless bet on a game of dominoes or cribbage, will, in future, be able to do so without breaking the law. We shall no longer have the anomaly between the game of darts and the game of dominoes.
I understand that some of my non. Friends are a little concerned about the extent of the powers given by subsection (2) to the licensing justices. I gather that the intention is that they shall exercise that power only if the game of dominoes or cribbage has got rather out of hand. As the new Clause now stands, that might be interpreted rather differently, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to give some assurance on that point. The new Clause may not be logical or in conformity with the Royal Commission's Report, but it has the great merit of being sound common sense.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I welcome this new Clause, mainly because, as I said on Report, my own constituents have always believed that these two games were in any case legal. They have never believed that either was a game of chance. After all, in dominoes, the only chance is in the dominoes that one draws. After that, skill comes into it, and the average person has believed that he was not doing anything illegal in going to the "local" and playing a game of dominoes or cribbage. Parliament has, at least, now made something legal that everyone thought was legal previously.
I hope that under subsection (2) the magistrates will not view too narrowly the point about the games constituting an inducement to persons to resort to the public house primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming. We all know that there are many people who


go to the "pub," not necessarily to consume drink therein but to join the company of their friends and neighbours and to take part in a harmless game of dominoes and cribbage. Personally, I do not think that the ordinary justices will use this power where it is obvious that a group of men are going to a pub, not necessarily to drink large quantities of beer but to join together in a game of dominoes or cribbage.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I am pleased that the Minister has legalised the playing of dominoes in public houses, and that a breath of fresh air has blown around his advisers who have previously found it impossible to legalise the game. I am pleased that the new Clause means that participants in a game of dominoes can, if they play for a stake without being liable to prosecution if they are caught, but what worries me is that the licensing justices have the power to fix rules. Are we to see different rules fixed according to the lights of the licensing magistrates? If that is so, we are likely to see restrictions on the game in one place and not in another, which would spoil all the good done by legalising the game.
Subsection (2) says that the magistrates must
… secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gaming on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes.
Does that mean that the magistrates can lay down what the participants may play for? If so, we may find some magistrates saying that the participants can play for 6d., others, Is., some 2s. 6d., and so on. It would be much wiser to say that the participants can play for any stake they like. I emphasise that here I speak only of the participants.
No magistrates can fix the stakes. If people want to play for 5s. a corner, they will do so, no matter what the magistrates may lay down. They will have an understanding among themselves to play in public for the figure laid down by the magistrates, and pay the rest later. Let those playing the game decide their own stakes rather than be tied down by magistrates' rules, which will differ from place to place. We do

not tie down anyone to a maximum stake in the betting shops, so why adopt a Mrs. Grundy attitude to the game of dominoes that we are legalising?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what part of a public house constitutes an inducement to resorting for gaming? In the main, the bar of a public house is the place where dominoes and cribbage are played. Will the bar be regarded as part of the premises for pun poses of gaming? If that is the case, and if the magistrates make rules debarring the playing of dominoes in the bar, we will only make things worse for the participants in the game as, under the present Act, they play dominoes in the bar.
On the other hand, if the Minister aims at side betting on a game of dominoes in a public house, he has my full support Side betting spoils the game being played by the participants. It leads to many shady tricks that cause much trouble. If four men are playing the game, and side bets are made by those not playing—by backing each of the four to win—it spoils the game because tic-tacking goes on behind the players' backs.
The side backers can see the hands of at least two of the players. They stand behind the players, and they can tic-tac Pulling a handkerchief out of a pocket may mean that the man who is following in play is holding the double six, or a scratching of the nose may mean that he has the double five. No matter how a person may play in front of another, tic-tacking means that the man is not getting a fair chance in his game.
I have seen countless troubles caused by this practice, and I should have liked side backing to be made illegal. I should like to see the responsibility put on the licensee to see that no side betting takes place on his premises. If that were made an offence in this Bill it is certain that the licensee would, to the best of his ability, see that the law was not broken.
Again, if the Bill contains no definition, magistrates may, in different places, make different rules even on side betting. Whether the side betting stakes are high or low, I think that side betting should be made an offence. I am not a prude. I sometimes have a bet on a horse. I play dominoes. I take a glass of beer. It will therefore be appreciated that my


attitude to side betting is not actuated by any motive other than to see that those who play a game can play it fairly, without it being spoiled by those standing around backing a certain player to win.
I want to make it clear that this does not happen in all public houses, but it does go on in many. We should make it clear that the purpose of this Clause is to allow only those who are playing to play for a stake, and not those who want to make side bets as to who will win the game. If the Minister cannot see his way at this late stage to do that, can he make it clear to the magistrates that side betting has to be an offence in any order they may make under the new Clause?
I can assure him that if he does this, he will be helping those who enjoy this game as a relaxation, and he will ensure that they are not subject to side betting, which undoubtedly spoils the game and causes very many unnecessary troubles in public houses. I have made this speech tonight to find out, in particular, whether the Minister can do something about side betting.

Mr. Eric Johnson: Like all hon. Members on the benches opposite, I welcome this proposed new Clause, but I should like it better without subsection (2), which seems to be of a vague character. I do not understand whether the magistrates are to go round and investigate, or whether they have to wait until they receive complaints that the game of dominoes is being played for excessively high stakes, and then investigate and make regulations to prevent this happening.
Then the magistrates are given the extraordinarily difficult task of deciding what are high stakes. It would be much more simple if this subsection could be omitted. I for my part do not believe for a moment that the game of dominoes will be played for high stakes on licensed premises. I think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of what the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has just said, but I think that it is almost impossible for any magistrates to define what are high stakes.

Mr. Fletcher: As I understand it, the House is in this position. Despite the

criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), there are no Amendments to this new Clause which reaches us as one of the Amendments from another place.

Mr. Blyton: We cannot amend it.

Mr. Fletcher: Therefore, the only alternatives before us are to accept this proposed Clause or to reject it. We have either to accept the Lords Amendments in toto or to disagree with them.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has said. Despite the practical difficulties that have been pointed out, we should welcome the fact that the Government have adopted this new Clause. We pressed for it in Committee and our pressure was then resisted. We pressed for it again on Report when my hon. Friend moved her Amendment. We were then told—in fact, we have been told repeatedly until tonight—that there were almost insuperable objections to permitting gaming in respect of dominoes or cribbage in public houses.
We were also told that it was contrary to all accepted evidence to try to prohibit the playing of games if they were identified by name. Both Royal Commissions were emphatic about that and the Minister told us that repeatedly. The point was pressed home by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We were told that if we started to identify any particular game by name in a Bill, it would lead to all kinds of unfortunate consequences because it would be possible to introduce some variation of the game and still call it by the name which was put in the Bill.
I am glad to find that all those objections have now been swept aside. I regard the acceptance of this Amendment as a victory for common sense. It would have been ridiculous if the Bill had gone forward enabling people to have a wager on a game of darts in a public house but preventing them from having a wager on a game of cribbage or dominoes. It would have been an intolerable interference with the recognised habits of those who frequent public houses. As I say, this is a victory for common sense and for realism, and I


hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing what the Minister wishes to say. I am sure that the House will give him leave to answer any points which have been made.
I should like to state the position as I see it. It is part of the concession that we have obtained by forcing the Government to allow dominoes and cribbage to be played in public houses, that there should be this reserve power which would in some circumstances—which perhaps may never arise—allow the justices to intervene if the playing of dominoes and cribbage were to develop into something quite different from the kind of harmless recreation as we now know those games to be.
As I understand it, the justices will have no power in any circumstances to prohibit gaming in dominoes and cribbage in any public houses. I imagine that it is unlikely that their intervention will ever be required. In the ordinary case things will go on as the public wish. I hope that these powers that are given to the justices will be treated as reserve powers, and that they will not lead to any restrictions or conditions being laid down in any ordinary case. Therefore, I hope that there will not grow up some variation of practice as between one set of licensing justices and another. If that were to happen, it would be unfortunate.
I agree with the remarks made at an earlier stage that this is a matter on which Parliament should pronounce, and that, now that Parliament has pronounced, that should be the end of the matter. I imagine that justices will wish to be guided by the general consensus of opinion which has led the Government, belatedly but happily not too late, to accept this Clause.

Mr. Ede: I, too, welcome this Clause and I support the line that has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who is a constituent of mine and has given me some interesting sidelights on the conduct of the people in the licensed houses in my constituency.
One of the difficulties that confront us is this. We are not now dealing with an amendment of the gaming laws. We are dealing with an amendment of the liquor licensing laws, and the justices who are alluded to here are not the justices who will serve on the authority that

will settle where betting shops and so on ought to be. These are the justices who will deal with liquor licences.
I am not quite clear how the thing works. Subsection (2) gives me some trouble. After all, the fact that we have an Amendment at all is a proof that if a Government are determined to get something out of a draftsman they will get it, and then the licensing justices have to see what they can make of the words that have been put into the Act of Parliament. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if I am wrong in any particular when he replies but I gather from the Clause that when it becomes law it will be possible to play dominoes or cribbage in any public house or hotel.
But if it comes to the notice of the licensing justices that some public house has been turned into a gambling den by the playing of dominoes or cribbage to such an extent that people, instead of going to the licensed premises to consume intoxicating liquors, or even temperance drinks as I do, go there mainly for the purposes of gambling, the justices can do something. I am not quite sure what, and I am not sure who will tell them, or when they will tell them and how they will tell them. Similarly, if it reported to them that high stakes are being played for they can make an order, which I understand may prohibit the playing of these two games on the premises or may limit the stake or in some other way bring the playing of the games into conformity with the justices' wishes.
8.30 p.m.
I can see the kind of argument that would go on in a justices' room when the licensing justices are considering a complaint. Half-a-crown would not be a high stake in a first-class hotel in a district but it is a high stake in the bar or games room of some particular public house. Have the Government given any thought to the exact way in which it would be possible to administer this law? I imagine that what will happen will be that the complaints, if any, will be made by the chief officer of the police for the district on a report that he has received from one of his subordinate officers. The complaints will appear at the annual licensing sessions but as far as I can see no offence is created in the Clause.
The police do not bring a case in the magistrates' court or before the licensing committee at one of their regular sittings but they say, "At the Barley Maw high stakes are being played for" or, "The Barley Mow is developing into a gambling den. The brewers are very perturbed because they cannot sell any beer and there is some rake-off for the landlord on the stakes." I repeat that, as far as I can see, no offence is created under the Clause and the justices do not have to adjudicate on any prosecution of that kind. I think that they will rely on a report from the police when the licence comes up for renewal.

Mr. Wigg: It is not a question of when the licence comes up for renewal. The Clause says that it is at any time.

Mr. Ede: I have been chairman of a licensing committee. My ban. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is knowledgeable about bookies and the Jockey Club and I regard his experience and opinions with great esteem, but it has been my complaint throughout about the Bill that it has never been looked at from the point of view of the magistrates' court. During earlier stages of the Bill Ministers have paid me compliments at which I blush about the way in which I dealt with the practical aspects of this matter. I want to see the Bill work out, but work out in the only proper way if its provisions are to be enforced.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring said about the iniquities of those who stand round the game and make their own bets on the way it is developing. If anyone has ever seen that going on, he will know that some of the bystanders at any rate think that one player has mare skill than another.

Sir J. Duncan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is absolutely illegal under the Bill.

Mr. Ede: I hope it is.

Sir J. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman will surely have read Clause 18 (1) and also the first line of the Amendment which we are discussing, which says that Clause 18 shall only apply to the playing of dominoes and not to side bets on the game.

Mr. Ede: That is just the kind of point on which a defending barrister before the licensing justices will make a good effort to show that the words are not quite as clear as the hon. Baronet thinks.
I am merely seeking to obtain assurances about how this provision will work. It is now so late—the first complaint that I made immediately after the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day was that the Lords Amendments are left to such a late stage—that if we are to get the Bill at all we cannot make any amendment which is worth-while. I very much doubt whether it would be reasonable of us to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to accept a manuscript Amendment, and I would not ask you to express an opinion about what you would do if anyone made such a request.
I hope that this provision will not mean that there will be police spying on the games which are being conducted, and that one publican, finding that he has lost trade because there happens to be a very popular games room in another house, will be able to incite the police to ascertain whether things are going on quite correctly in that house.
As the Clause stands, I do not believe that it is reasonably workable. We might just as well have said that dominoes and cribbage will be allowed and left it at that, because if there is to be effective supervision of the games there will have to be some machinery devised and some offence will have to be created and the case will then have to go before the licensing justices, or, more probably in the first place, before the main court in the area and its decision will be reported to the licensing justices. However, I see in the Clause as drafted no offence, but a power vested in the licensing justices if they think that the Clause is being abused, to make an order that will restrict activities in a certain house. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some reassurances about the way the provision will be administered.

Mr. Wigg: Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has placed the House in his debt because he has brought to bear upon the Clause a wealth of experience and understanding which has been lacking in previous speeches. Of course it is


desirable, if one can, to liberalise the Bill in accordance with public demand. But the Clause is a perfect example of hasty reappraisal of what is, I agree, a difficult position for the Government. They are under considerable pressure to make it legal for cribbage and dominoes to be played on licensed premises. However, I do not think that they stopped to think how the provision will work out. My right hon. Friend thinks that proceedings will came before the licensing session. The Clause does not make that provision. It is an open invitation to competitors in the same street, rival brewing firms or any person who wants a "down" on the licensee to go to the bench and denounce him.
Forthwith, this provision should be withdrawn. It is not in accordance with our traditions that here, by a side wind, we seek to amend the licensing laws. This is an astonishing move. I cannot understand the leaders of my party acquiescing in a proposal of this kind. If we want to revise the licensing laws there will be an opportunity in the next Session. Do no let us do it by a side wind when dealing with gaming. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that it is so late, and we want the Bill to get the Royal Assent tomorrow—

Mr. Ede: I do not.

Mr. Wigg: I do, because, on balance, it is a step forward. I do not want to throw away six months' hard work. We must, therefore, either take this or leave it. In taking it, I hope that the justices will keep this provision under review—indeed. I hope that the Government will do the same. It may well be that those we think we are serving will be wiser than we and that same of the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will prove to be groundless, but this could be fruitful of a great deal of friction and could prove to be a thoroughly retrograde step in practice.
I do not think that dominoes and cribbage are quite the innocent games that the innocents on my Front Bench think they are, but then, unlike them, in my youth I was a bit more steeped in vice. These games could be sources of a great deal of gambling in the worst sense.

While they look innocent, they can be anything but innocent, although I agree that the intention is innocent. I hope that we shall at least get from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the situation will be watched, and that if abuses become evident the Government will take action.

Mr. John McKay: I enter this discussion not because I am interested in the Bill as a whole, but because of what has been said during the few minutes in which I have been in the Chamber. What I have heard has created interest for me in the subject.
I had always understood that the Bill was in no way framed with the idea of encouraging more gambling, but for the simple purpose of regulating whatever betting was taking place in the country. Yet, from the discussion to which I have just listened, it appears that Amendments are now being made to extend facilities for gambling in public houses. One hon. Member mentioned that it was not legal to gamble with dominoes in public houses. Now, however, we are making it legal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—whom I generally support, although I am not able to do so tonight—seemed to object to placing any limitation upon the stakes that can be placed on dominoes in public houses. Gambling is now to be allowed where it was not allowed before, and in that respect it seems that we are departing from the Bill's original intention. To judge from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring, a great deal of illegal gambling is already going on.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: And, perhaps, in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. McKay: There is any amount of it in my constituency. We are now to provide greater facilities.

Mr. A. P. Costain: And greater control.

Mr. McKay: My hon. Friend is now advocating that there should be no limitation on the stakes in a game of dominoes.

Mr. Blyton: No, I was dealing with the participants in the game and not with the spectators.

Mr. McKay: Even with that restriction, if there is no limitation on the stakes, gambling on dominoes in public houses will increase and public houses may become gambling rather than drinking places—although neither is very good, because occasionally people go to extremes. I believe that the licensing authorities should have power to intervene and make restrictions if they have reason to believe that gambling in a public house is becoming excessive. I prefer an arrangement like that to increasing facilities with no limitation on the amount of gambling, which, I believe, would be a departure from the initial intentions of the Bill.

Mr. James McInnes: I have the maximum possible sympathy with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who pinpointed the difficulties and problems which will inevitably arise from subsection (2) of the Amendment. The licensing justices—in Scotland we call them the licensing magistrates—
may at any time, if …they think fit so to do, by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises…
The situation which I visualise developing is the licensing justices in one town imposing certain conditions and restrictions, while magistrates in another town impose different conditions and restrictions. Throughout the country there will be a hundred and one different types of restrictions about what one can and cannot do when one goes to play dominoes. It is unfortunate that no amendment has been proposed to the Amendment from another place. I think that every hon. Member would like to amend the proposed new Clause so that it would operate satisfactorily.
The latter part of the Amendment provides that the magistrates may also deal with the question of location and decide whether the game is being played where it constitutes an inducement to other people. We are somewhat unfortunate in Scotland because we have public houses of one apartment only, with no waiting, or side rooms, or anything of that kind. I wonder what the licensing justices would say if they went into a one-apartment pub. Would they forbid the playing of dominoes in that apartment because it would attract or

induce other people to participate in the game?
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I visualise a thousand and one difficulties arising from this. It is unfortunate that we have either to accept or reject the Amendment. It would not take very much to convince me that it was necessary to reject subsection (2), but, if I did, according to my right hon. Friend I would be accused of not being reasonable in my attitude. For that reason, I have to accept the Amendment.

Miss Bacon: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who does not, after all, possess a monopoly of wisdom in the matter of betting and gaming, that I am by no means an innocent in these matters. Perhaps he did not hear my original speech, when I invited the right hon. Gentleman to explain how subsection (2) will work. It may be that magistrates will not have the power to come in, except in exceptional circumstances. If that is so, it is a pity that something of that kind was not included in subsection (2).
Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, as I hope he will, I should like to ask why it was thought necessary to include subsection (2) in the new Clause dealing with dominoes and cribbage, when, as I understand, it is not necessary to include a subsection, or these recommendations, in the case of those games which in any case will be legal because they are games of skill. I refer to darts and shove-ha'penny. Without these restrictions it seems that we will allow the undesirable practices which the Government think might arise out of the playing of dominoes and cribbage to arise in the case of darts and shove-ha'penny.
I am sorry that subsection (2) has been included. In spite of that, I hope that the new Clause will be accepted, because, on Report, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were very keen that the law should not make an ass of itself, which is what it would do if the Bill were not amended. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance about the justices, and say how this will work.

Mr. Vosper: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I think that I can


give the assurance which the House requests, although I doubt whether I can bridge the gap between the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and his hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) whose speech I very much welcomed because it expressed the attitude which impressed the Royal Commission and presumably made it come to the conclusion that the existing law should be maintained and that there should be a complete prohibition on all forms of games in public houses. We have come a long way from that position, but it was obviously the point made by the hon. Member that the Royal Commission had in mind.
When the Government followed the advice of the Commission and introduced a Bill on those lines it was not criticised at any time during the Second Reading debate, despite the fact that that debate took two days. In spite of that, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said considerable Amendments were moved in Committee, because it was felt that the operation of this law was not practicable, and that some easement should be made to bring it into line with what was really happening. The object was to make all games of skill legal, because, under the definition of the Bill, that is not gaming. By the wording of the Amendments anything which was not gaming became legal in the bar of a public house. A game of skill, such as darts or bar billiards thereby became legal.
Secondly—and I think that this is an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring—the Amendments moved in Committee allowed dominoes to be played in a room set apart in a public house and enabled the game to be played under conditions laid down in the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, and by hotel residents. The Amendment did not cover the playing of dominoes and cribbage in the bar of a public house. I was aware at the time that these games were excluded, but if the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) refers to the report of our proceedings in Committee he will find that not many hon. Members shared my view at the time. Most of them thought that dominoes and cribbage were games of skill and would therefore be included in

the terms of the Amendment that I was moving. I shared their anxiety that these games should be included, and my right hon. Friend said that he would do his best to overcome any difficulties in this connection.
That there were difficulties is shown by the inclusion in subsection (2) in this new Clause, which worries so many hon. Members. The point is that there is no definition of a game of dominoes. As hon. Members on both sides have played it, it is an innocent game but, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggested, it need not always be so. In Committee hon. Members were most impressed by the expertise shown by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who repeatedly said that it was possible for a wise man to invent almost any form of gaming given a name, and that with no definition of dominoes there is a danger of advantage being taken of this provision to produce some form of gaming which would not be acceptable to the public or to the House. That is the reason for the insertion of subsection (2).
Nevertheless, I do not think that, initially, any public house will be subjected to any impositions under this subsection. As has been said, it is a reserve power to be used if at some time someone seeks to take advantage of this liberalising move to produce a form of dominoes which is pure gaming and is designed to introduce a gaming den under the guise of a public house. To the extent that this form of dominoes excluded all other social amenities from the public house, then and only then—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is right in this—would the police approach the licensing justices with a request that some conditions should be imposed upon the licensee of the public house concerned.
I must tread delicately when I discuss the activities of magistrates in the presence of the right hon. Member for South Shields, because I value very much his experience of these matters. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the matter could be raised at the annual meeting of magistrates, or elsewhere, and that magistrates could then impose a form of conditions in a case where a form of dominoes had been invented which was an inducement to gaming and was not a form of social activitiy.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am not concerned with some other form of dominoes. I could not define dominoes, although I have played the game. It is like the case of the elephant. The boy attempted to define it by saying that it was an animal with a leg at each corner and a tail at each end, which, while it described it, was not accurate. I should know when the game of dominoes was being played if I watched it. I have had policemen come before me charging people for gaming on Epsom Downs by playing a game of chance, to wit, nap. I had no idea what that meant, and neither had the policeman nor the defendant. I do not want to ride off on that kind of thing. I want to know how the administration of subsection (2) is to be carried out. May I make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? When the Bill becomes law, he should try to draft some model arrangements to send round to the justices for their consideration.

Mr. Vosper: I am always glad to take advice from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The last thing that I want to see happen is what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) feared—different benches imposing different conditions. My conception is that no bench will start by imposing any conditions at all, and that the use of this power will be very rare and unusual. I will certainly consider whether some further advice should be given in the light of this debate and of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I gladly give the assurance that while I believe this reserve power is necessary, if one wants to make this step forward there is a possible risk for which one must provide safeguards, and I would suggest that subsection (2) should be retained in the Bill.
The other point was that raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who expressed anxiety about side betting. I value his experience in this matter and I know it has caused him some anxiety. I think it is a matter to be examined, but I am afraid that I must disappoint him, because this provision would not prohibit side betting. What we are dealing with here are provisions about gaming, and what the hon. Member has in mind is private betting. Nowhere in the Bill do we seek to prohibit private betting. The hon.

Member has in mind private betting on a game of dominoes or cribbage, or it might be private betting on a game of darts, or upon the extent of the Government reshuffle tonight. All that might take place in a public house. So far, the Government have not thought fit to intervene in private betting, and it would be difficult to intervene in the limited sphere of private betting on dominoes and cribbage which he has in mind—and in no other game.
I value the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter, but I think there would be difficulty if Parliament thought fit to intervene in this sphere. I have no experience of side betting on dominoes and cribbage, though I will accept what he says as correct, but the Bill as drafted could not deal with that problem. Some other form of legislation, if Parliament thought fit, would have to be introduced. My final word in answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is that this has not been an easy Bill. It is easy to say now, "Why did not you do it originally?" It still is not easy. There are still difficulties, and these must be watched most carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21.—KLOCAL AUTHORITIES NOT TO SUBSIDISE PREMISES FOR GAMING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 29, to leave out "solely or partly" and insert "wholly or mainly".

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
On the final stage of the Bill in this House, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) moved an Amendment to make certain that local authorities should not take advantage of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, to run a municipally-owned casino, and that was the general wish of the House. As I previously advised the House, it is most unlikely that advantage would be so taken. The hon. Member's Amendment made certain, but he said it would require some modification. That is the purpose of this and the subsequent Amendment, to leave out line 31 and insert a new proviso, which perhaps we may take together.
As that Amendment was drafted, it would have included the use of a card room in a municipally-owned golf


course, of which there are many, and the use of a room in a public hall for a whist drive or something of that nature, which I am sure was not the intention. Therefore by the alteration of the words in the first Amendment we have taken care of something, in a way in which I am sure the House would wish us to do.
One further point. As the Amendment was drafted it would have excluded what it is intended to legalise in another part of the Bill, the provision of amusements for prizes on the pier at Southend or in some such place. Therefore, the proviso in the second Amendment is designed to see that the provision which the House has legalised shall not be prevented by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I was responsible for proposing the new Clause during the Report stage and I am perfectly content with the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is an improvement to substitute the words "wholly or mainly" for the words "solely or partly".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment made.

Clause 27.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 28, at end insert:
(including the said paragraph 25 as applied by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 25D of that Schedule)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment together with the Amendments in page 25, page 26 and page 30 and the Amendments in page 34—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The Amendments in page 34 include the Amendment to line 31 to which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has an Amendment down, and that had better be taken by itself.

Mr. Vosper: Perhaps I might initiate a general explanation, because the earlier Amendments are paving Amendments for the second Amendment on page 34. Here there are two points at issue—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am anxious to avoid any confusion, regarding the second Amendment in page 34, to which there is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields. So let it be clear that we are not discussing that Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: My difficulty is to explain the Amendments prior to those on page 34, because they would make complete nonsense unless I include an explanation of the Amendments in page 34. I think that I can meet the point which you have in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Here there are two points at issue which were not raised in the debates in this House, although one was brought to my notice at a late stage before the Bill went to another place. It was represented to me that, whereas it was not possible for a bookmaker to obtain a licence and to transfer the licence to another bookmaker, there was no possibility of one bookmaker getting a licence as a fit and proper person and then transferring it to another person who was not fit and proper. But if the bookmaker was a company and a new director who was not a fit and proper person joined the company he would not be covered by the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment to which these earlier Amendments are paving Amendments is to take care of that possibility.
The second and more substantial point is that it was represented to me, and it was pressed in another place, that it was wrong that a bookmaker who defaulted during his year, and who was warned off the course by Tattersall's or some other body, should be able to enjoy the benefit of a permit for the rest of the year, and that some power should be available to deprive him of his permit before the new period came up.
The purpose of these paving Amendments and the long and complicated Amendment to which the right hon. Member for South Shields has an Amendment, is to deal with the issue that power is now available for a bookmaker who commits some offence or defaults and is warned off the course to come before the justices, or at least for a complaint to be made to that effect It provides power for complaint to be made to the clerk of the court who then submits the case to a licensing justice, who decides whether or not the case is


sufficiently severe to be brought before the full court at that period or can stand over until the annual period as proposed originally in the Bill.
I do not expect that many such cases will come up during the year. It was argued from many points of view in another place that at least that power ought to be available and that the protection of a bookmaker's permit should not allow a bookmaker who had been found guilty of some serious default to continue in practice, or at least to prevent his case being heard before the licensing justices. I bad some doubt about accepting those proposals, but there was considerable pressure to do so and I understand that bookmakers themselves would welcome some provision on these lines. It is protection for the public.
We hope that we have devised some machinery which will not impose too great a burden on the licensing justices. That is the purpose of the Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to this House as it did to another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 49, leave out "to the authority".

"Notification of change in directors during currency of bookmaker's permit


5
25A. If, where the holder of a bookmaker's permit is a body corporate, any change occurs in the persons who are directors thereof or in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors thereof are accustomed to act, the holder of the permit shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the change give particulars thereof in writing to the clerk to the appropriate authority and to the appropriate officer of police; and if the holder of the permit fails to comply with this paragraph he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.


10


Cancellation of bookmaker's permit by appropriate authority


15
25B. If in the case of any bookmaker's permit an application is made at any time to the clerk to the appropriate authority by any person in the prescribed form and manner requesting that the permit be forfeited and cancelled and accompanied by two copies of a statement of the grounds on which the application is made, the clerk to the authority shall submit the application to any one member of the authority who, after considering the statement accompanying the application—


20



(a) if he is of opinion—


25
(i) that further consideration of the matters referred to in that statement is unnecessary or inexpedient before the renewal of the permit falls to be considered; or


30
(ii) that the authority would be required by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 25C of this Schedule to refuse the application,

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
A separate point is raised by this Amendment and the Amendment which follows with all the Amendments to page 33. Perhaps they can be discussed together.
This is a somewhat technical point relating to appeals. As the Bill was drafted, it was laid dawn that the licensing authority should be respondent to an appeal both in regard to an appeal against refusal to grant a bookmaker's permit and refusal to grant a betting office licence. It has been urged that in the case of the bookmaker's permit it is not reasonable that the licensing authority should be respondent in that facts only are relevant to the appeal, whereas in the case of the betting office licence the question of licensing policy comes into effect as it does under the licensing Acts. This Amendment makes the licensing authority no longer respondent to an appeal in respect of a bookmaker's permit.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 31, at end insert:

shall cause notice in writing to be given to the applicant that the application is refused without prejudice to the raising of the same matters by way of objection in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule to a renewal of the permit;
35


(b) unless he is of such opinion as aforesaid, shall refer the application to the appropriate authority.



25C.—(1) Where an application for the cancellation of a permit is referred to the appropriate authority under the last foregoing paragraph, the clerk to the authority shall, unless the application has been withdrawn, give to the applicant, to the holder of the permit and to the appropriate officer of police not less than twenty-one days notice in writing of the date, time and place appointed for the consideration of the application by the authority, and shall send to the holder of the permit together with that notice a copy of the applicant's statement of the grounds on which the application is made.
40


45


(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, at any meeting of the appropriate authority to consider the application, the applicant and the holder of the permit shall be entitled to be heard either in person or by counsel or a solicitor; and where the applicant is a person other than the appropriate officer of police the authority shall also hear any representations made by, or by any person authorised in that behalf by, that officer; and paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to the application as they apply in relation to an application for the renewal of a permit, subject to the following modifications of the said paragraph 15. that is to say—
50


55


(a) as if the reference therein to the applicant for renewal were a reference to the holder of the permit; and
60


(b) as if the reference therein to any person who made an objection as mentioned in that paragraph were a reference to the person by whom the application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule was made.


(3) The appropriate authority shall refuse the application if they are satisfied that it is made on grounds which—
65


(a) have been or ought properly to have been raised previously by way of objection either when the permit was granted or on an occasion when it has been renewed; or
70


(b) are or have been the subject matter of proceedings for such an offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section eight of this Act.


(4) The appropriate authority shall not cancel the permit unless—



(a) satisfactory evidence is produced that the holder is no longer a fit and proper person to hold such a permit; or
75


(b) the authority are satisfied that the business to which it relates is being managed by, or carried on for the benefit of, a person other than the holder, being a person who would himself be refused the grant of such a permit either under paragraph 16 or under subparagraph (a) of paragraph 17 of this Schedule:
80


Provided that for the purposes of this sub-paragraph the authority shall disregard any conviction such as is mentioned in paragraph 19 of this Schedule.
85


(5) If the appropriate authority decide not to cancel the permit, they shall cause notice in writing to be given to the applicant that the application is refused without prejudice to the raising of the same matters by way of objection in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule to a renewal of the permit.
90


(6) If the appropriate authority decide to forfeit and cancel the permit, the forfeiture and cancellation shall not take effect—



(a) until the expiration of the time within which notice of an appeal under the next following paragraph may be given; nor
95


(b) if such notice is duly given, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.

100
25D.—(1) Where the appropriate authority decide to forfeit and cancel a bookmaker's permit on an application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule, the holder of the permit may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions (or in Scotland the sheriff) having jurisdiction in the authority's area, whose decision on the appeal shall be final.


105
(2) Paragraphs 22 (except sub-paragraphs (4) and (7) thereof), and 23 (or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 25) of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of an appeal under this paragraph against the forfeiture and cancellation of a bookmaker's permit as they apply for the purposes of an appeal against the refusal of an application for the renewal of such a permit subject to the following modifications, that is to say,—


110



(a) as if any reference therein to the applicant for renewal were a reference to the holder of the permit; and


115
(b) as if any reference therein to a person who opposed the application before the appropriate authority were a reference to the person by whom the application under paragraph 25B of this Schedule was made,


120
and, in the case of an appeal to the sheriff under this paragraph, the sheriff may make such order as to the expenses of the appeal as he thinks proper."

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 21, to leave out from "to" to "after" and to insert:
a member of the authority appointed by the authority for the purpose at the January meeting in each year for the period until the next January meeting. Such member".
The right hon. Gentleman has done me the courtesy of telling me in writing that he intends to advise the House to reject this Amendment. Realising the balance of power in the House at present, I have no doubt that he will have his way, but that is no reason why one should not go down fighting. I regard this matter as of very considerable importance. The effect of the Amendment would be that, instead of the clerk of the licensing authority selecting the member who is to decide whether or not the case shall proceed or be adjourned until the annual meeting, the justices themselves will do it.
I had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the other Joint Under-Secretary of State, and he conveyed my views to the right hon. Gentleman. Among the inquiries I made was whether there was a precedent for what the Government are doing. It is a wonderful example of the need for the most meticulous examination of Bills that there is a precedent for this to be found in the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958. One of the problems which con-

front the House is how, with the detail and volume of legislation, we are to ensure that what we understood were accepted principles are always applied in the administrative parts of Acts of Parliament of this kind.
As a justice, I object to the clerk selecting who among the justices shall do a certain thing. The clerk is the servant of the justices. The best thing that Lord Goddard did when Lord Chief Justice was to make quite certain that the justices were responsible people and that the clerk was not to accompany them when they retired to consider their decision unless they wanted his advice on a point of law. Of course, once they have him in their room, what happens there only the justices can tell us.
However, I have worked with clerks who, when a justice has put a question, have said, "Sir, that is not a matter of law. That is a matter of fact and you are the masters of that. I have no right to express an opinion to you about it". I have even known a justice ask the clerk what the proper sentence should be. He was given the same answer, namely, that it was nothing to do with the clerk as long as the maximum sentence allowed by the law was not exceeded.
It is important that that principle should be maintained and should never be deviated from in these administrative arrangements. There are plenty of people who believe that the clerk runs the court. There are plenty of evil-minded people who say, "He chose old Bill Smith to be the justice to try the


case because he knows that Bill Smith will always do as he wants him to do and will raise no objections."
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been imploring me for the last week not to move the Amendment. He said to me, "If you do it, you will wreck the Bill. They will not be able to get the necessary Amendment through the other place in time for the Bill to become law". I should shed no tears over that, although my hon. Friend would.
We are faced with this difficulty. It would be quite wrong for one Member to wreck the Bill, even assuming that the Government have no way of getting a quorum into the other place tomorrow morning to deal with any Amendment that we pass tonight. After all, they require only three for a quorum there. The quorum could be made up from the three Lords Commissioners who will have to announce the Royal Assent later in the afternoon. However, it would be quite wrong of any one Member to wreck the Bill on an administrative point like this, and I do not intend to do it.
I impress on the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that the position between justice and clerk should always be most carefully observed in this sort of matter. The right hon. Gentleman has assured me that he could find other objections. First, this is a layman's drafting, and the profession must be protected. Secondly, if we provided that it should be a justice, on the day he was wanted he might be suffering from an infectious disease and nobody could get to him. He might even be away from home on holiday.
One of the things we on this side complain about is that in drafting a fairly complicated Amendment we have no drafting assistance, although some of our hon. and learned Friends render us very great assistance in this respect, particularly my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
I admit that what I am proposing must break any draftsman's heart, because it is quite clear on the face of the Amendment exactly what I mean to do. If I had had the services of the draftsmen available to the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that I could have tabled an Amendment which would deal with

the case when the justice selected was for some reason not available and there might be an alternative person to whom people could go. Even if I had done that, I should have received exactly the same advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who has just returned to see that I remain of good behaviour. He would still have said to me, "If you do that and you carry it", which is a thing I never expected to do, "you will wreck the Bill and we shall not get it this year".
I move the Amendment, in the circumstances, as a protest against expecting the clerk to select the justice who is to fulfil this particularly responsible job of advising on how the complaint is to be dealt with. I think that it should be the choice of the justices, and when the law is consolidated I hope that this will be one of the minor Amendments and that proper provision will be made to secure that the appointment shall be by the justices. I should not have thought that it would have been too revolutionary to suggest that the application should go to the chairman of the authority instead of the clerk selecting a member.
I do not intend to delay the House any longer, but I make my protest against taking a function which belongs to the justices collectively and giving it to the clerk.

Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has moved his Amendment to the Lords Amendment. There is, as he said, a perfectly respectable precedent for this in the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958.
I would not rest my defence of the Lords Amendment simply on that, however. That would be most inadvisable. Nor would I rest my defence simply on the argument that if I were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment it would wreck the Bill. I must disclaim any responsibility for the activities of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), much as I appreciate his good intentions.
There is a difficulty here. I see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I must accept from him, in the light of his experience, that the clerk to the justices could select a justice to


his own way of thinking and not necessarily the man best suited to give a decision, but I should have thought that that would happen only in the minority of cases.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that if I were to adopt his procedure that the justices should name for the whole of the year one justice there would be the risk that the procedure would fall down because that justice might not be available. That is particularly so in the opening year of this procedure, when there may be quite a number of rather irresponsible applications. I even envisage that there may have to be more than one justice named, and possibly a panel in some of the large petty sessional divisional areas. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted it would probably be open to more dangers than would result from the Lords Amendment in its present form.
I hope that it will work out all right in the way that the justices themselves will select for a period, a month or three months, one, or two, of themselves, and it might be left that the chairman might do it for an initial period. I would have thought—I am open to correction, because I have not the right hon. Gentleman's experience—that, in fact, the justices would sort this matter out for themselves without being open to the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly drawn attention. Even if I did not think that, I would still think, on balance, our method to be slightly better—it may be only slightly better—than the method that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I think that it is true that it was probably inserted in this form on the precedent of the 1958 Act. I have no evidence that that has not worked extremely well.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press for his Amendment. I do not know whether there is any way in which one can bring this to the attention of the justices and suggest that they should on a voluntary basis arrange something on these lines, but I think that in the majority of cases they will meet the point that he has raised.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for South

Shields (Mr. Ede) that I had to leave the Chamber during the latter part of his speech, and therefore unfortunately did not hear the allusion to myself and to our conversation on his Amendment. If my right hon. Friend did press his Amendment, and it was carried against the Government's wishes, the result would be that we would not get the Bill, which I would regard as regrettable.
One could make too much of this Amendment, although it is important, because one of the influences that have been at work is a desire among the bookmakers themselves to weed out undesirable characters, and make it more difficult for them to operate. I think that the House should know of that gesture, as it is an encouraging sign that the bookmakers intend to do their best to make the Measure work, and that is of importance if the Bill is to have any chance at all.
For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I understand, of course, his reason for putting it down, but, if he will pardon my saying so, I do not think that it is as important as is the Amendment enshrining the definite decision of the bookmaking profession to put its house in order and do its best to make the Measure operate in the public good.

Mr. E. Johnson: I very much welcome the Lords Amendment. It was very badly needed, and will greatly improve the Bill. There are those who believe that the possession of a bookmaker's permit means that the bookmaker is a man of honesty and financial stability but, as the Bill stood, if, during the course of the year, he proved himself otherwise he would have been able to go on. This Lords Amendment will safeguard that position, and the Bill is very much the better for it.

Mr. Ede: I do not wish to prevent any other hon. Member from speaking on the Lords Amendment by maintaining my Amendment before the House, Having listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would point out to him that the Lords Amendment says
… the clerk to the authority shall submit the application to any one member of the authority …
The type of clerk I most dread is the one who, if a justice said to him, "Will


you use my esteemed colleague, Thomas Robinson, for this purpose?" would reply, "If you will read the Act you will see that you have nothing to do with it. The Act puts the duty on me". I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, That this House doth agree wth the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

SCOTLAND (UNIVERSITIES)

9.36 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move,
That an humble Address by presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will withhold Her Assent from University Court Ordinance No. 350 (Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh No. 12) (Regulations for Research Students and Appointment of Research Fellows), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, 1960.
We should like to be assured before coming to a decision on this matter that the universities in Scotland are doing all they can in the revival and stimulation of industrial activity and in extending Scotland's participation in the scientific life and progress of the nation.
Scotland's population is approximately 10 per cent. of that of Great Britain as a whole. The population of students with a first degree in science in Scotland is 17 per cent., and that at first sight seems satisfactory. In the case of first degrees in science and technology the figure is 11 per cent., but research students in science and technology amount to only 8 per cent. of the student population who have attained that standard in Great Britain.
The reason for this seems to be that the Scots have more ordinary degrees and fewer of the higher degrees. In Scotland, 49 per cent. of the students took ordinary degrees whereas, in Great Britain as a whole 27 per cent. took only

ordinary degrees. The chance of the final year science honours student holding the D.S.I.R. research scholarship in Scotland is, fortunately, approximately equal to that of the similar student in Great Britain. There are about 14·2 per cent. in Scotland as against 14·6 per cent. in Great Britain.
The position of research scholarships is fairly satisfactory, but when we come to advanced course students in Scotland, in 1958–59 there were only 14 applications and 11 awards, only 4 being taken up. In 1960 the position has fortunately improved. There were 25 applications, 17 awards and 10 were taken up. In the United Kingdom however, there were 539 applications, 344 awards and 251 were taken up. Therefore, Scotland in the matter of D.S.I.R. awards taken up had only 4 per cent.
It may be that the Master of Science degree in Scotland will help in this direction, but we require some explanation why in our universities there should be such a small percentage of applications for post-graduate courses compared with the percentage in Great Britain as a whole. In the past, these courses have been largely concentrated in London and Birmingham. Is this due to any difficulty in Scottish universities and should they be doing more to promote post-graduate courses? Will the Ordinance, which seems to bend in that direction, make any considerable contribution to the improvement of Scotland's scientific contribution?
The D.S.I.R. has given grants in support of special researches at Scottish universities for years to the extent of £267,000. This is very good in its way, but it is only 7 per cent. of the Great Britain total. It seems less than we might have expected when we depend so much on education as an economic factor in Scotland. I am told that this is due to the small number of applications and proposals for research and not due to the D.S.I.R. putting on any restriction. It seems entirely fair in granting these research scholarships.
Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give any explanation why Scotland is so defective in keeping up with the rest of the country in this respect? Can he give us an assurance that there is a close enough co-operation between the D.S.I.R. organisation in


Scotland and the universities? My information is that there is a considerable amount of what one must call jealousy. I know that some of the scientists in the D.S.I.R. who ought to have been asked to tackle a certain problem were carefully excluded because the universities wanted to tackle it on their own. It was a very important problem from the point of view of Scottish and international shipbuilding.
One would have thought that, when the D.S.I.R. has established a big organisation in Scotland, the universities, instead of keeping aloof, would have kept in constant touch and would have combined their efforts. It is difficult enough to get scientists to come to Scotland in the first place, because there is always a tendency for them to hang around London and not to go further away than Oxford from where their wives can easily reach the shops in London and they can easily get away to the clubs for an odd "blather" at night.
I have been making some inquiries into the reason why Scotland lacks in this respect. I am not at liberty to give the name of the authority from whom I shall quote, but he is a person with outstanding qualifications to judge. Probably there is no one who is better qualified to do so in Scotland. He says:
Frankly, I do not think that either Scottish industry or the Scottish Universities have quite come to terms with this age of science and technology. Things have improved enormously, one must admit, during the last ten years, but there is still some way to go. I suspect that not enough graduates are employed in Scottish industry; certainly one rarely sees an advertisement, in the Sunday papers, for skilled technologists, from a Scottish firm.
Then take again the welcome incursion of the light industries into Scotland to mop up the pockets of unemployment. Here the Scottish asset is skilled labour, the ideas and know-how in most cases come from England and the U.S.A. This can be changed if more research of all kinds is done in Scotland. We do not want our really good people to be obliged to go elsewhere for the right conditions and atmosphere. They should have a choice.
This is a very serious matter from the point of view of Scotland and its future, and it is very closely linked with the debate we had the other day about the future of Scottish industry.
The last survey showed that of all research and development in private industry in this country Scotland had

2·7 per cent. while London and the South-East had 28·8 per cent. and the Midlands 13·1 per cent. It is a dreadful state of affairs that Scotland should have only that small proportion. This research is called private enterprise research, but most of it is on Government account, and, therefore, the Government can play some part in directing or guiding industry. Directly or indirectly, most of the research is paid for by the Government.
Forty-nine per cent, of the research is in the aircraft industry. Some of that comes to Scotland, I agree, but not very much. I also agree that we are not likely to have aircraft industries in Scotland, and in the light of the present trade trend I am not sure that we now want them. However, there are industries developing out of aircraft which are equally important, and some of this research should certainly be guided in our direction.
A more serious matter is that 10·7 per cent. of the research is done in shipbuilding and engineering. Eighty-one per cent. of the research in shipbuilding and engineering is done by D.S.I.R. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary could give us any idea offhand how much of that comes to Scotland, but obviously it must be a relatively very small amount. Yet Scotland is the main centre of shipbuilding, not only in this country but in the world. I should like to know how much of the shipbuilding research is done in Scotland and whether a great deal is done South of the Border and, if so, why at least some of it should not be attached to the industry in Scotland. The amount in respect of metal manufacture is 3·4 per cent., and, therefore, it is not so important.
Our students are leaving Scotland in great numbers. I received some facts in this respect from the Secretary of State some time ago. I propose to deal with the faculties in which we are interested. For instance, about 58 per cent. of the students in engineering at Glasgow University leave Scotland, having to go elsewhere to find work. This is one of Scotland's main industries. It is tragic that when half our students on the scientific side of engineering enter the university they are at the same time buying a ticket to go abroad. In other words,


they go into the university as the gateway out of Scotland. That is a tragedy for Scotland.
In the case of Edinburgh the proportion is even worse. About 69 per cent. of the students in engineering at Edinburgh have to go elsewhere to find work. In chemistry the figure is 67 per cent. That rather surprises me because chemistry is one of the subjects for which we have outlets in our medical chemistry in Scotland for a great number of scientists. There is almost exactly the same proportion in respect of physics and mathematics in Edinburgh; 65 per cent. of the students have to go out of the country to find work.
Much the same thing happens at Aberdeen, where 64 per cent. of the students in engineering have to go outside the country, as well as 52 per cent. of the science students. The only students we keep are those studying the arts, law and divinity. We keep our morals all right, whatever we do with our engineering.
We are looking at this from the point of view of the effect that this new development will have on Scotland's industry and Scotland's future. I was interested to read the report of a speech by Mr. Alan Beaton who was, if my recollection is correct, Conservative candidate for Leith. He is now a management consultant. His comment was interesting and important. The report said that Mr. Beaton stated that
Scots would not halt emigration"—
I agree that we would not want to keep everyone at home—
achieve real prosperity or banish unemployment unless they started backing their faith in their own country. Our costs were too high, our designs too traditional, our selling efforts lacking in drive. There were too many dead end jobs in Scotland, too little investment, and lack of opportunity in research work.
Of the major post-war industrial undertakings in Scotland, Mr. Beaton claimed that no less than 66 per cent, were English, 23 per cent. American, 4 per cent. Canadian, and 3 per cent. Dutch.
'We Scots have been responsible', Mr. Beaton said, 'for less than 1 per cent. of the new undertakings in our own country—scarcely more than that invested by the Swiss and Italians.'
Scotland's only major disadvantage was distance from the main consumer markets in the south. But even that could be eliminated by a 10 per cent. increase in productivity

which could be achieved almost overnight, given a combination of faith, determination worker.
There should also be stimulation from the Government. This Ordinance, if accepted, will take us some way to success and we welcome that and would not propose to reject it today. The idea of bringing people in to do research in Scottish Universities seems a very small but welcome step towards the solution of the terrible problem which faces us not only educationally but industrially.
Tonight we must finish perhaps the last debate in this Session on Scottish affairs by renewing our plea to the Government to get down to the problem of thinking about Scotland as a whole. One of the basic factors in Scotland's future is provision for research and development, and opportunity for people coming out of universities. The universities assure me that one of their great disadvantages is that there is no opportunity to encourage people in Scotland to find jobs there.
The Government are the main financiers of research, whether it be private or public. They have great power in directing it. No one can tell me that a man thinks better in the smoke of London than in the fresh air of Scotland. If he could get out to East Kilbride and play a game of golf in the evening, his research would be all the better next day than if he had the soot and smog of London about him. The Government should get people and research out of London and into Scotland. There people can think, feel and live freely. Research itself would improve. This is linked up closely with the use of research in industry, and it is tragic that we must depend so much for our ideas on America, England and other parts of the world for the development of our industries.
I know that it is difficult to ask people to invest in something which does not show great promise. Perhaps we are a nation which does not like to take risks and in the long run it may be the Government who will have to take the risks. But the Government will have to have a policy and I am sure that if they give a lead and a stimulus to industry and even, if necessary, some guarantees, there will be some chance of getting not only industry, but the universities in Scotland to provide the


kind of education and scientific and technological training which will keep Scotland abreast of the rest of the nation.
I would have liked to have said something about medical research, because the universities may not be doing as much as one would expect from a country with our tradition in medicine, but I have said enough on the main subject to show that, while we appreciate what the universities intend to do by this Ordinance in giving research fellowships and bringing people into the universities and encouraging them to undertake new research, it may be that that move is too limited and that further steps in that direction will have to be taken.
We do not propose to divide the House on this issue, and I am happy to relieve anybody who is somewhat apprehensive on that score. We have raised this matter because it is of such importance. I think that we are doing the universities some little service in calling attention to the fact that they are taking this step forward. Our only wish is that it should be a greater step. We are entitled to ask that the universities should play their part in the life of the nation, but they are entitled to ask that the Government should do their share in making that possible.

9.57 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I have been asked by all four Scottish universities to speak in support of this Ordinance. We are indebted to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for raising the rather wider issues of research which are involved. There are many aspects which we as Scottish Members would like to debate in closer detail, but which might not be in order now.
However, we would be greatly helped if we had more information about how the money for research is spent. For example, how is it divided between teaching and research and between manpower and materials? It is true that we have the reports of the University Grants Committee and the annual reports of all the Scottish universities presented in one form or another. Anyone happy enough to have a university in his con-

stituency knows that, if one inquires, the universities always willingly give as much information as they can. However, a more specific inquiry on how the money is spent would be welcome, because with that information we would be better able to discuss the wider issue of the use of research in industry.
For instance, to take the example of my own University of Aberdeen, in 1954–55 there were 77 full-time and 22 part-time post-graduate research students, while in 1959–60 the numbers had risen to 91 full-time and 24 part-time. It is expected that that number will increase. Research fellows are very few. For instance, only two junior and one senior research fellows are paid out of general funds, while nine research or senior fellows are paid out of moneys from other sources. In the University of Aberdeen expenditure on salaries from general funds in 1959–60 totalled £3,500 while that from outside funds totalled £26,828.
Out of a total of 276 teaching staff, salaries and superannuation together total £½ million, and it is written into the contract of every member of the teaching profession that he shall engage in original study and research. That being so, we would like to know in greater detail how this affects all the universities and also what are their plans after this Ordinance is passed. I am sure that everyone is glad that there is not to be a Division on this matter tonight.
If one asks how many more students it is hoped to have by the new Ordinance, universities say that it is impossible to give a firm reply because of the difficulties and differences in accommodation in the four universities, and also because of the differences in the various departments. That being so, they feel that by this Ordinance they will be able to do what they want to do, which is to encourage as many research workers as possible by making use of every available resource open to them.
If I might turn to the specific Ordinances, we should remember that the last Ordinance which now has force was passed in 1895, and came about at a time when the facilities for research were far inferior to what they are today. What the universities are asking of this new Ordinance No. 12 is that the Scottish universities shall have the


same facilities as are now enjoyed by English universities to attract research workers. As everyone knows, this Ordinance is approved by the Senatus and General Councils of all four universities.
The universities feel that an Ordinance which was passed sixty-five years ago, while very much more detailed and comprehensive than the present one, has some rather needless and, in many ways, undesirable restrictions. This falls under two main headings. First, they feel that the pattern and structure of research today is far more varied and complicated than it was sixty-five years ago. As all hon. Members know, the universities obtain their funds from two main sources: first, Treasury grants; and, secondly, the more widely used grants given in increasing numbers from industry in various forms. The universities feel that it is necessary to try to encourage research at all levels, particularly in the science and medical departments, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Paragraph II of the 1895 Ordinance went into great detail, but it laid down that all persons who were allowed to carry on original studies in research must be research students under supervision. These rules, while perhaps suitable for research students for higher degrees, are, in the universities' view, too rigid to cover research workers who are badly needed at all levels, and it is this point they wish to stress. For example, research posts can be filled by persons of seniority who already hold Ph.D. degrees and have several years' experience behind them. It is, therefore, felt that it is unreasonable to say that their research should be done under close supervision. Section II of Ordinance No. 12 provides a far more flexible arrangement.
The second provision in Ordinance No. 61 which the Scottish universities find particularly hampering in paragraph VIII. This restricts the choice of research Fellows to those who are, or have recently been, research students. Therefore, in law it is not competent for a Scottish university to appoint to a research fellowship a candidate who has taken a higher degree elsewhere, or who has not been a research student in the university in which he now wishes to become a

research fellow. It is maintained that this is a serious handicap to Scottish universities, because valuable research fellowships are being offered to Scottish as well as to English universities, mainly from industry. It therefore makes it impossible invariably to appoint a candidate who had been a research student in that particular university.
On the merit of this Ordinance, we should congratulate the universities on having reached agreement on what is not a very easy subject. They feel convinced that they can give greater facilities for research. I hope that the Government will try to obtain more information as to the way in which this research is broken up between the various Departments and the universities themselves. I hope that the House will approve the Ordinance.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has emphasised the need for Parliament and Scotland to have a good deal more information about the universities of Scotland and, in particular, about the research work that they are doing. I am sure that the House is grateful to her for the amount of information she provided as to the need for this new Ordinance. and I hope that I shall not seem ungallant if I tell her that although we are grateful to her for this information it does not seem to be quite the proper way of doing things that the House should have to receive information about the case for this new university Ordinance from a back bencher.
In presenting this Ordinance to the House the universities might have adopted the practice that we use, of providing an explanatory memorandum, so that we know exactly what the Ordinance is about.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As I understand, the universities circulated not only copies of Ordinance No. 61, but also of Ordinance No. 12 short explanatory memoranda. I said that I hoped that we would have further information, on top of that.

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that information, but the circular from the universities was sent


to us only as a result of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself tabling this Prayer. If there had been no Prayer this Ordinance, so important to Scotland, would have gone through without anybody knowing precisely the reasons for it—and I concede that the reasons are good ones.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Not only that; they reached hon. Members only yesterday. This does not seem a very courteous way of dealing with a matter in which hon. Members are greatly interested.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I would like to tell the House that I received a letter from the Secretary of the University of Aberdeen informing me that information had been sent to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), but not to me. That supports the argument that my hon. Friend is presenting.

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reinforcing the point I want to make, which will be the main emphasis of my speech. My right hon. Friend has ably dealt with the wider question of academic research in Scotland, and I want to deal with the narrower point of the universities' relationship with Parliament and the people of Scotland and, in particular, with the responsibility of the universities to provide us with a much bigger flow of information at an earlier date than they have been accustomed to doing up to now.
When one tries to discover all the available information in the House about the operations of Scottish universities one goes to two main sources. We find that there are, first, the returns of the University Grants Committee, to which, no doubt, the Minister will refer us in due course. In these annual returns the Scottish universities are very much lumped together with other universities in the country. Therefore, it is difficult to get any real details about the operation of the very large sums of money which become available to the universities each year.
Then, one pursues one's researches a little further—and even a humble Member of Parliament is allowed to be a

research student in a modest way—and one discovers in the Library of the House of Commons that there is a bundle, tied somewhat flimsily with string, and called "unprinted papers." These unprinted papers are the annual accounts of the Scottish universities, together with various other statistical data about the universities. It is a somewhat haphazard arrangement, and not very satisfying for one who is trying to find out what is happening. I may also add that they are considerably out of date. The latest accounts of the Scottish universities available in the Library are for the year 1957–58, and I should have thought that they could be a little more expeditious than that.
When we are looking at the available information, meagre as it is, for specific facts about the expenditure on research and the number of research students at Scottish universities, as the hon. Lady so very rightly said, there is a very great dearth of that kind of information. We have had no indication as to whether the existing regulations, which, admittedly, are very out of date, may, in fact, have been one of the reasons for the decline in the number of research students, and we do not know how this affects them.
I am sure that in the long run the number of research students that we have at Scottish universities is bound to depend on the number of entrants coming into the universities. We get complaints from our constituents from time to time that there are not enough places at the Scottish universities for those who are qualified to obtain entrance. Though the hon. Lady told us she had no difficulty in getting information from the universities about this matter, I must confess that I have not had her experience, because it has not been possible for me to get adequate information if I ask how many people have been turned away by Scottish universities, or how inadequate the places may be in other faculties.
Then there is the question of the qualifications of the people going into the universities themselves. There were alterations in these qualifications recently which might very well affect the number of people who will come in under these regulations. These alterations, which


were carried out by the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, were of a controversial nature and were raised on the Floor of the House. When we wrote from this House to the Scottish Universities Entrance Board asking it to provide us with information as to the reasons for this change, we are told politely, but firmly, in academic language, that it is none of our business. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the entrance regulations to the Scottish universities are very much the business of the people of Scotland and of their representatives, and that we ought to have a more helpful and more courteous response from the universities to that kind of request.
I sometimes wonder whether some of the difficulties difficulties we have about the inadequacy of research activities in Scottish universities, which my right hon. Friend has described, are in part due to the out-of-date pattern of the professorships in the universities. I sometimes feel, on looking over the structure of our universities, that they have failed rather badly to keep pace with the swiftly changing needs of modern communities. I find, for instance, that in my own University of St. Andrew's, which has been notably progressive in recent years, in the divinity faculty, there is one professor for every eight students.
When we turn to the sciences, both pure and applied, the ratio becomes 1 to 27. The Scottish universities have failed to a much greater extent than many English universities to set up chairs in the more modern sciences, particularly the social sciences, and perhaps that might help a good deal in extending the research facilities in Scotland.
Then there is the question whether the regulations which we are removing by this Ordinance have been the sort to persuade industry to give adequate help to the universities. I notice in the annual returns that the payment for research received at Scottish universities is much lower than for universities in England and Wales. Considering the fact that Scotland has one-sixth of the university student population of the United Kingdom one discovers that the payments for research are half of what they ought to be in relation to the student population. When one looks at the figure of income from local authori-

ties one discovers—I do not know the reason—that Scottish local authorities contribute to the universities again about half of what English local authorities contribute to universities in England and Wales. Clearly, there is room for a big improvement in that direction.
Of course, the success of these regulations in promoting research in Scottish universities will depend to a considerable extent on the adequacy of the finances that the Scottish universities receive. In passing, I may say that there has been more than one occasion when the Public Accounts Committee of this House has commented on the inadequacy of the public scrutiny of university expenditure of the very large sums of public money which they receive. Last year, they received about £46 million and there is no other single institution which gets public help on this scale with so little public accountability.
I wish to say a word about that in a moment, but I am wondering, in particular, whether we can be satisfied with the way in which research in Scottish universities is financed. So far as I have been able to find out—I must tell the House that these figures are necessarily very imprecise—about half the funds for research in the universities come from three sources: from the Government, from the big educational foundations, and from industry. The proportion between these three is about seven parts from the Government, two from the educational foundations, and five from industry.
I understand that one of the reasons for the universities feeling sensitive about matters like this being discussed in the House of Commons is their proper caution about any suggestion of political interference with their work and of political pressure on their academic freedom. I suggest that a look at these figures would indicate another danger about which we might get a little more public discussion. The research money comes mainly from the Government and industry and these parts of the money come particularly in relation to defence contracts and, in the case of industry, as the result of research work which is necessarily closely related to the kind of work of the industry making the grant.
The smallest source of money is from the educational foundations, which one would have thought freer from external consideration. There is, therefore, concern that there might be a danger of non-academic influence being brought to bear on the kind of research done by the universities. Perhaps some attention might be paid to that and we might get more information on which to conduct a public discussion.
Although, so far as I can make out, about one student in twelve in the Scottish universities is a post-graduate student, there is remarkably little provision for dealing with the tuition and training of the post-graduate student. I am not here dealing with the future research fellows under these new regulations, the people who come back to the universities with a distinguished record of service. I am referring to the normal student who takes his degree and goes on to post-graduate work. Our universities are different in this matter from the American universities and there might be some discussion about whether we ought to have post-graduate school on the American model. It is something that does not receive adequate consideration.
Another question which interests me a great deal, and which I am sure will interest my hon. Friend, is whether the new regulations which will be drafted under this new Ordinance we are passing tonight will make it easy enough for someone who has acquired a technological qualification which is not necessarily a formal university qualification to qualify for post-graduate research facilities. I am thinking, for instance, of people who will take the new Diploma in Technology, or those who will take the Higher National Certificate, or some of the associateships in one of the mechanical or electrical sciences. I hope that the universities will make sure that there are proper facilities for taking them in the post-graduate stage without forcing them to go through some of the more formal and academic hoops.
I hope that I have said enough to underline the need for a much greater flow of information between the universities and Parliament and the interested public at large. I fully admit that there is need for a very careful distinction between what might be called

proper matters of academic concern and questions of public policy, although, of course, it is not always easy to see where to draw the borderline between them. I certainly do not want, and I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends do not want, any sort of political interference with the academic work of universities. No one is suggesting that we should have the right to put down Parliamentary Questions about these subjects.
No one wants a State university, although I sometimes think that the arguments advanced against having a State university concentrate too much on quoting the example of some of the obscurer universities in America, and forget the large number of State universities throughout the world where academic questions are not called into question. One can think of some distinguished examples in the United States, of the Sorbonne and of the historic Vienna University, all of which are State universities. We have our own traditions and the University Grants Committee is working them out very well. But there is the question of adapting these conditions and making sure that the universities remain thoroughly responsible to the community they are serving. I think that the universities, if, by mistake, they have fallen into what seems a rather superior attitude, will now try to get away from it. I believe that they have a responsibility to the community which they themselves will recognise. In any case, although they may feel they do not like Parliamentary interference, in practice they have to keep coming to Parliament. They have to come to Parliament for their money and for the legislation which gives them their being.
My first experience of participating in debates in this House was in connection with the new legislation to set up and organise the University of St. Andrew's. I am glad of the progress made in that university since that time. I should have thought that these Ordinances, one of which we are discussing, are mainly matters of academic concern and not, in genereal, proper matters for us to discuss in this House. I think that this one is the exception rather than a rule, but so long as they are the only means we have of obtaining information about the universities, we are bound to go on


using them. I hope that the universities will draw as a moral from this debate that they should cease to be what sometimes seems an esoteric secret society and should provide freely the information we would all like to see made available, so that those of us who are proud of our ancient universities and wish them well may have the means to take part in informed public discussion of their problems.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have the greatest confidence in commending this Ordinance to the House. I do so with greater confidence because of the arguments adduced by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) who said that the Scottish universities have to some extent failed to produce the number of research scholars that Scotland ought to produce. I think that was due to a large extent to the Ordinance which it is proposed to repeal and to replace by this Ordinance.
When we think about a university, we are apt to forget that a university has two functions, not only the function to teach students but the function of research and adding to the sum of human knowledge. It seems to me that the old Ordinance was designed entirely to facilitate teaching and to do little or nothing for the research which is so necessary when academic subjects, particularly scientific subjects, are progressing as rapidly as they are today. By giving the universities elasticity, this new Ordinance will go a very long way in helping to do precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be done.
I have been extremely interested by the arguments which have come from the benches opposite about a greater flow of ideas between this House and the universities. This is the second Ordinance to

come under discussion in this Chamber within a fortnight. That, I think, is proof in itself that there is a certain lack of liaison between the universities and the House of Commons.
I recommend to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that he should take this matter up with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his consideration of electoral reform. After all, it was right hon. and hon. Members opposite who did away with the very close liaison between the universities and this House which lasted for many years through the University Members. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will have noted that my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) was appointed ad hoc to put the case of the universities tonight. Various hon. Members from both sides have tried hard recently to make sure that the universities are properly represented and that the academic point of view is understood in the House.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by saying that his noble Friend was appointed ad hoc to present the case to the House? Are we not all equally Scottish Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hendry: I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to my noble Friend's speech when she said that she had been asked by the four Scottish universities to present the case for this Ordinance. That should not be. For many years, the universities were directly represented in the House, and it was the party opposite which did away with that. I ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to take a message from the House to the Prime Minister, asking that consideration be given to restoring the University Members to the House of Commons.

10.27 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: I have learned more about Parliamentary procedure as a result of the debate so far than I have learned of university practice and habits. It seems strange to me that one should be able skilfully to weave round this very simple Prayer asking Her Majesty to withhold her assent a general discussion of the widest possible nature on university activities. I say quite frankly that, had one expected that that would be permitted under this sort of heading, one would probably have come better armed with factual information. However, from the limited knowledge I have gained as a result of my practical experience as a member of a university court and as a governor of the Royal College of Science and Technology, I wish to make one or two points to dispel some of the erroneous views which are, unfortunately, held by some of my hon. Friends.
First, what is the set-up in a university? There is, of course, the senate, which is composed entirely of the professorial staff, senior lecturers and a few others. There is the university court, which is the overriding body and which receives reports from the senate. Then there is a very valuable watch-dog body known as the general council, which is representative of all the graduates of the university. The general council publishes admirable reports. As for the completeness of them, I can speak only from the point of view of Glasgow University. Anyone who cares to study the Quarterly Report of the University of Glasgow General Council will find a great deal of the information which hon. Members have sought so anxiously this evening. I know that a similar practice is followed by the other three universities in Scotland.
I am certain of the opinion that there should be the fullest possible information. Glasgow University celebrated its quincentenary a few years ago. St. Andrew's is even older. For 500 to 600 years these ancient universities have suffered no interference, but there is the ever-present danger that, after the short step of inquiring about the financial arrangements, will come pressures and exertions such as we know existed and led to undesirable situations in other countries. I am sure that no hon. Member would welcome such a state of affairs in this country.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn), I Think that we Should be proud of our achieve rent in Scotland. I want to refer to, the Royal College of Science and Technology which is recognised us the finest technological institute in this country. Lt attracts people from all over the world. It carries out the very research work to which my right hon. Friend referred, namely in shipbuilding, engineering, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. Research into these subjects is carried out to an extent which I do not think is surpassed in any other technological institute in this country. We are rightly proud of it.
At Glasgow University a department of virology will be opened next year. It will carry out research into virus diseases in competition with only two other similar institutions in the whole world. We in Scotland do not lag behind the rest of the world in our research development.
All the things which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) are anxious to achieve are likely to be achieved by the simplification and flexibility of this Ordinance, which we shall obviously agree to. Its purpose is the abolition of the petty restrictions which were applicable and relevant in 1895. They are no longer necessary. The Ordinance will ensure the attraction of more research students to the Scottish universities.
There is a limit to the amount of research work which can be undertaken by a university with a student population well below that in English universities. This is because our numbers are much more restricted. We turn out a far higher calibre of research student than any other university in the country. The fact that the students may be unable to find employment in Scotland after they have completed their research work is something over which the universities have very little control.
A book is published by the University of Glasgow which records the amount of research done and the number of publications as a result of that research from 1952 to 1955. It contains literally


hundreds of reports on the research work carried on at Glasgow University alone.
The information that we all seek as to the financial arrangements of the universities, the U.G.C., and so on, should be available to hon. Members, but if hon. Members were to do some research on their own account they would find much of the information in the reports of the U.G.C. They would find information about the establishment of chairs, and whether chairs are being brought up to date and keeping abreast of the needs of modern university development. All these things are regulated by the amount of money made available by the U.G.C. I have been a member of the university court which made representations for the establishment of chairs, but had to abandon that idea because we recognised that the U.G.C. had available only a limited amount of money to promote the new chains that we were so anxious to establish.
I think that the criticism levelled against the inadequacy of the information, especially on the financial side, can be remedied easily, and perhaps a great deal more information that this House should rightly receive and discuss could be obtained if, instead of a committee being set up to inquire into the workings of the university, the practice of the English universities was followed of publishing an annual report on the work of the university. That would make available to hon. Members each year the information for which they have asked and would satisfy their just inquisitiveness.
If, therefore, it could go forth from this House as a unanimous suggestion to the four university courts that such annual reports should be prepared, I am quite sure that those institutions would pay heed to it and we, in turn, would get that general information on their workings to which we are entitled.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Niall Macpherson.

Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the debate on a Prayer can go on until 11.30 p.m. This is a matter of very great interest,

not only to hon. Members but also to Scotland, and I suggest that the Minister ought to wait, in order to reply to the whole debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that the debate on the Prayer can continue until 11.30, but if the Minister rises and catches the eye of the Chair, the Chair will call the Minister. Mr. Niall Macpherson.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we take it that what the Minister has to say will not conclude the debate? There are others of us who wish to be heard on this subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the Minister's speech does not necessarily conclude the debate. If other hon. Members rise, they will have every opportunity to be called. Mr. Niall Macpherson.

10.38 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): This is a Prayer for the annulment of a university Ordinance—it is not a Prayer for the annulment of regulations made by any Minister—but I think that it might be convenient if I were to intervene now, if only to emphasise that I am in no way winding up the debate but merely intervening to indicate the Government's attitude.
This is the second occasion this month on which a Prayer has been moved against a Scottish university Ordinance, the Prayer on 13th July in connection with the Glasgow University LL.B. Ordinance being the first of its kind, so far as can be traced, since the universities obtained the power to make Ordinances under the University of Scotland Acts. 1859 and 1889.
The Glasgow University Ordinance was to some extent a special case in that what the universities do about law degrees and law degree courses must have a direct effect on the training and qualifications of members of the legal profession.

Miss Herbison: The Minister could not wait to hear hon. Members speak from this side of the House, but surely he might wait till the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady


Tweedsmuir) returns to the Chamber. She was appointed ad hoc to speak for the four Scottish universities. She is not now in her place.

Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry, but I cannot control the movements of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). I was not aware that she was not in her place, but she is free to come and go and, of course, to see my name on the tape. She can come into the Chamber if she likes to do so.
I think that it is important that one should draw this distinction between this Prayer and the Prayer that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) against an Ordinance which had a direct effect outside the universities as well. In that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West indicated, there was some difference of opinion on the merits of the proposed changes. I have listened to the debate so far, and I think I am right in saying that there are no differences of opinion about the merits of this Ordinance. It is an amending Ordinance replacing one which, as my noble Friend said, dates back to 1895.
It is not, in any event, for me to express anything in the nature of a Government view on the question of merits. Nor is it for me to answer a debate as if it were a Prayer against a Government Regulation or as if it were an occasion to debate Scottish affairs. In the view of the Government, this is a matter for the universities alone, and it is for the House to judge whether or not to approve this Ordinance.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will, therefore, forgive me if I do not follow him in the exceedingly interesting speech that he made, but we will most certainly look carefully at all that he has said. I think he made a most valuable contribution to our debate tonight.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister has made a very interesting point on a matter that is new to the House—namely, the procedure that we are adopting on these university Ordinances. He says that this is not in any way a matter for the Government but a matter which lies directly between the universities of Scotland and

the House of Commons. Can he give an assurance that on a future occasion when an Ordinance may be more controversial than this one there will be a free vote on the Government side?

Mr. Macpherson: One is often asked for assurances about the future, but one cannot look into the future, and it is always better to let the future take care of itself. I should not be prepared to give any such assurance, because it is always conceivable that a university might make an Ordinance—I do not say that it would or could, but it might—on which the Government might have a very strong point of view to express either for or against. It is always conceivable that it would then be a question of the point of view of the Government vis-à-vis the independent universities. I want to make that position quite clear.
It is not for me to express anything in the nature of a view on the part of the Government on the question of merits. As the House is aware, it has been the policy of successive Governments to preserve the autonomy of the universities and not to infringe on their independence on matters of academic policy, and I would suggest that it would be impossible for me to be suspect in the box and not at the Box, so far as this debate is concerned.
This is a matter, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) put it very aptly, between the universities and the House at the moment. Therefore, for these reasons, I feel that I must resist any temptation to influence the House one way or another on the substance of the Ordinance. Nor would it be appropriate for me, on the basis of the present Prayer, to be drawn into discussion of the wider questions concerning research facilities which have been raised tonight, although I recognise their great importance and the intrinsic interest of every hon. Member in them.
In the earlier debate on the Glasgow University Ordinance I described at some length the procedural steps relating to university Ordinances. I do not intend to repeat them in detail, because they will be fresh in the memory of the House from a very recent debate, except to remind the House that any Ordinance prepared by a university court must be first submitted to the Senatus Academicus


and the General Council. After those consultations it is submitted to the Privy Council, but before that body considers it, it has to be laid before Parliament.
In this case it is my duty to inform the House that the procedure has been followed in each of the Scottish universities—because the Ordinance is common to them all. No representations have been made against it to the Privy Council within the statutory time limit, which has now expired, and it has been approved by each of the university courts. Therefore, the Ordinance comes to the House in order, and I would not suggest to the House that it should reject it on the ground that it is not in order.
Hon. Members have raised on this and also on other recent occasions, including Question Time, the extent to which the Scottish universites publish information about their activities. As I said on a previous occasion, I have no doubt that the universities will take careful note of what has been said tonight, including some valuable suggestions from both sides of the House. As for the information which has to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the terms of Section 30 of the 1899 Act, my right hon. Friend has indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) that he will consider carefully the suggestions he then made. I shall certainly bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the additional points that have been made tonight.
But one cannot stress too often that the universities are independent self-governing bodies. In matters concerning the financial needs and the development of the universities as a whole the Government are advised by the University Grants Committee, to which the task of allocating grants to particular universities is entrusted. I believe that I am right in saying that the grants are allocated en bloc and are generally not earmarked for particular purposes, so that it is still more difficult for anyone standing at the Dispatch Box here to account for the way in which that money is spent.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Is it not a fact that when universities make application to the University

Grants Committee for certain capital expenditure, and so on, they are considered for specific projects?

Mr. Macpherson: I stand corrected. The hon. Member and I have together looked into these matters at the Committee of Public Accounts in days gone by. There are two different kinds of university expenditure. There is recurrent expenditure and capital expenditure. The capital expenditure is gone into very carefully, but I was talking about recurrent expenditure. I take it that most of the expenditure arising out of this Ordinance would be mainly concerned with recurrent expenditure.

Mr. Hoy: It ought to be made perfectly clear. I think that even the hon. Gentleman will admit that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said, the Committee of Public Accounts has only at long last made some little inroad into finding how the money has been spent. That is what has worried the House of Commons.

Mr. Macpherson: This is a more general matter which leads me to the next point with which I intended to deal. I shall certainly report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the feeling that hon. Members have expressed, particularly my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and the hon. Member for Dundee, East. My right hon. Friend will no doubt wish to discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in turn will discuss it, no doubt, with the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, which is at present the recognised channel not only for the disbursement of the money but for the collection of information from the universities.
A great deal of information about the universities is available already in "Returns from Universities and University Colleges", which are published annually. It is a University Grants Committee publication annually presented to Parliament.

Sir M. Galpern: It publishes an annual report.

Mr. Macpherson: It publishes the annual returns and a detailed quinquennial review.
I return to the question which is before the House tonight, namely, whether the


Ordinance made in 1895 should now be replaced by a new one which will, among other things, give research Fellows a status entirely separate from that of research students. The purpose of laying the Ordinance before the House is to give hon. Members an opportunity to object to the terms or the effect of the Ordinance and to ask for it to be annulled. It will be for the House to consider whether any valid objections have been raised such as to warrant the Prayer for the annulment.
No doubt the debate will have served a very useful purpose in other respects, because it is not often that the House gets an opportunity collectively of expressing opinions to the universities. But in accordance with the doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of the universities, I would say again, in order to make it quite clear, that it is not for me as a member of the Government to attempt to influence hon. Members either way. I hope that I have done what I conceive to be my duty, which is to try to report to the House the position of the Government in this matter.

10.53 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We did not expect any more from the Joint Under-Secretary than he has been able to give. We realise the difficulty in which he is placed. However, I am very glad indeed that he agreed that the Prayer has served a very useful purpose. I am also very glad that he has made it clear that his right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the points which have already been made.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). He seemed to think that we should not need such a Prayer, that all our problems in regard to the universities and their relationship with Parliament would be solved if the Government were to return to university representation. I do not think the hon. Member would have made that suggestion had he been in the House from 1945 when we decided to do away with university representation because those who represented the universities just did not do the job that the hon. Member suggested that they did. Indeed, the university seat was in many instances a mere refuge for

discarded politicians—Tory politicians, of course.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the subject was raised by an hon. Member on one side of the House and, therefore, the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to refer to it, but she is not entitled to go into it in detail on this Prayer.

Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Lady Tweedsmuir: When the hon. Lady says that all Members representing Scottish universities did not do their job, I must come to the defence of one of them in particular, the right hon. Gentleman who—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must not pursue that matter further now.

Miss Herbison: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that I have made the point.
I was more amazed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. He took a line very different from that taken by the Minister. The Minister felt that the debate had served a very useful purpose, but my hon. Friend seemed to think that because the universities had continued for 500 or 600 years without any matter such as this being raised in the House of Commons, it was not fitting that we should talk about it tonight.
He suggested that there might creep in the great danger of political interference in the universities. It is incumbent upon me to emphasise what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member far Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who made it perfectly clear that they had no intention of interfering with what one could term the academic freedom of the universities. We have no interest at all in interfering with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that Members could get the information which they were seeking in the report of the general council. I am a member of the general council of Glasgow University and I get a quarterly


report, but many of the facts which my hon. Friends felt ought to be given are just not to be found in that report, good as it is. My hon. Friend said that we could find information on financial matters in the Report of the University Grants Committee, but the detailed expenditure about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was asking is not shown in that Report. We should make it perfectly clear that, without any desire Ito interfere with the academic freedom of our universities, we think that we have a right to the sort of information for which my hon. Friends have been asking.
Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that we might be giving the impression that in research we were lagging behind the rest of the world. I do not know the facts about the rest of the world, but I know some of the facts about Great Britain and about Scotland vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom and
… Facts are chiels that winna ding".
There is no doubt that we are lagging behind many of the universities in England, although not all. For instance, only a small proportion of the advanced course studentships are held in Scotland and if the Ordinance helps more of them to be taken up in Scotland, it will be an excellent thing. However, it is a fact that only a small proportion of the advanced course studentships given by the D.S.I.R. is held in Scotland and that the concentration of post-graduate courses is in the Universities of London and Birmingham.
In 1959, 59 per cent. of the Great Britain advance course scholarships were held at the Universities of London and Birmingham. It is not that we do not have a great number of university graduates—our proportion of the United Kingdom total in 1959 was 17 per cent. in science and technology, 11 per cent. having obtained first-class honours degrees, so that we had more than our share, even among those with first-class honours degrees.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston about the valuable contributions made by our universities, but they do not make sufficient use of the advanced course scheme. If this Ordinance makes us use it more, it will be a very good thing indeed. In

1959, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities all had a greater proportion of these advanced scholarships than Glasgow University and the Royal College of Science and Technology together.
During the past four years grants for special research at Scottish universities amounted to £267,000, or 7 per cent. of the amount spent in Great Britain. Our universities use a lower proportion of the D.S.I.R. grants than they ought to use when one considers our high proportion of university students. That must surely reflect the small number of proposals for research which have been made by the Scottish universities.
During the last six months of 1959, there were 292 applications from the United Kingdom for grants. Of that figure, only 21, or 7·2 per cent., came from Scotland. Our figure is much lower than pit ought to be. In 1959–60, there were 25 applications from Scottish universities. We have no complaint about the D.S.I.R. which is willing to give us all the help we can take. Out of 17 awards made, only 10 were taken up. Of the 25 applications to which I referred, 13, or more than half, came from the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow. In other words, the one college which is not a university, although it is very closely associated with Glasgow University, accounted for more than 50 per cent. of the applications from Scotland.
It is not to be wondered at that we on this side of the House felt that this was an opportunity to show very clearly that we are perturbed about this matter, and that we want our Scottish universities to put forward more projects for research work. We want our students to take up more of these advanced scholarships. We are not complaining tonight. We are not going cap-in-hand asking for anything; it is there for the taking.
Aberdeen University felt that it was incumbent upon itself to approach one back bench Member on the Government side. If it had approached hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would have found that our desire in putting down this Prayer was to help our universities in Scotland to get their share of this research work. If we continue to neglect these matters, not only the


academic future of our universities but the industrial future and well-being of our country will be marred.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will ensure that the points which have been made in the friendliest spirit from this side of the House are brought to the notice of everybody concerned. I hope that the four Scottish universities will do as well as the Royal College of Science and Technology, of which we in the West of Scotland are very rightly proud.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: It has been made abundantly clear in this debate that hon. Members on this side of the House do not oppose the Ordinance on its merits; indeed, the Minister has certain misgivings as to the way in which the Ordinance had been handled. Several times he repeated that the universities are independent bodies, and that neither he nor the Government are responsible for them. I do not intend to address my remarks to the merits of the matter, which have been adequately dealt with. I want to say that it is a pity that the great universities of Scotland should have lent themselves to presenting this Ordinance to the House in a party political way. It is quite obvious from what has been said in the debate and from what I shall adduce shortly that the universities did that. The dates show that.
The remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who spoke comprehensively and presented her case very well, showed that she was approached before any hon. Member on this side of the House.

Mr. N. Macpherson: It would be a great mistake if an impression were given that this debate was in any way political. I would point out to the hon. and learned Member—and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) will bear me out in this—that in the previous debate the hon. Member for Shettleston was the spokesman for the university, and merely because it happens that on this occasion the spokesman for the university came from this side of the House I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not say that this is a political debate.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister was a little too previous in saying that. I will refer the House to a letter I received from the Secretary of the University of Aberdeen dealing with this Ordinance. He said:
At the request of Mr. Angus who is at present out of Aberdeen, I am writing to draw your attention to a Prayer against the above Ordinance which I understand is to be heard in the House of Commons on Wednesday next, 27th July, 1960. The University of St. Andrews on behalf of all four Scottish Universities, will be circulating to all M.P.s an explanatory memorandum … We should be greatly obliged, therefore, if you would lend your support to the Universities' case, the main speaker for' which is to be Lady Tweedsmuir, your colleague from South Aberdeen.
Does not that show that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was privy to this; that she had been consulted before anyone on this side of the House was consulted, and that we were left in the dark about it? Does not that in itself justify the Prayer?
Worse than that; this letter is dated 22nd July. In common with my colleagues, I had no communication from the University of St. Andrews at that time. I subsequently received a communication from that university dated 23rd July, 1960. It is quite obvious from these dates that hon. Members opposite were privy to this before any hon. Member on this side got any inkling of it. In those circumstances, we on this side of the House were perfectly justified in putting down the Prayer.
I close as I began, by saying that the dates show, notwithstanding the disclaimer of the Minister, that the universities treated this matter in a party political way which is quite unworthy of the great traditions of the universities of Scotland.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not at all fair to the universities. It is perfectly open to the universities to approach anyone to speak in support of an Ordinance when they hear that there is to be a Prayer for its rejection in the House of Commons. Hon. and right hon. Members have received copies of both Ordinances and of the explanatory memorandum. To be fair to the universities, when they hear that there is a Prayer put down and that that is the way the matter is to be taken, it is only sensible that they should approach someone whom they think may be likely to support them.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that the noble Lady has said that because she is unfair to the universities and she is unfair to herself in lending herself to a transaction of this kind.
The universities of Scotland have a great tradition, a great reputation and a great history. It is wrong that they should be party political in their approach and engage in a transaction of this kind on a party political basis which leaves hon. Members on this side no alternative but to put down a Prayer so that the matter can be explained adequately. I said at the beginning of my speech that we do not oppose the Ordinance on the merits. We approve of it, but to get an explanation it was necessary to put down the Prayer.

11.12 p.m.

Dr. Alan Thompson: My hon. and right hon. Friends who put down this Prayer tonight deserve to be congratulated. As I see it, their case rests on two propositions, both of which are sound. First, they say, the original Ordinance, Ordinance No. 61 dated 1895, is inadequate. I accept that. Secondly, they say that the new Ordinance should be the subject of Parliamentary debate so that we may discuss how the flexibility provided for in it can be used to give us the research which Scotland and the United Kingdom need and deserve today.
I take, first, the proposition that the original Ordinance was a bad one. It imposed restrictions which may have been suitable in the nineteenth century but which are not suitable today. Its restrictions supervising students in great detail in the conduct of their research may have been useful for young students in 1895, but senior people, at the postdoctoral level, let us say, coming to a university now would not accept research grants in the restricted conditions applied by the old Ordinance of 1895.
For example, the University of Edinburgh has been more or less ignoring Ordinance No. 61 for a long time. Out of 687 research students last year, only three were admitted under the terms of Ordinance No. 61, and 684 were accepted under different Ordinances which related to specific degrees such as Ph.D., M.Sc., and so on. In other words, a device has been found to admit the other 684 under different Ordinances—that is, those relat-

ing to specific degrees. Ordinance No. 61 is, in fact, moribund and it should, obviously, be repealed.
The second proposition is that this House should discuss whether the kind of research we can really look forward to is the right kind. We cannot be completely satisfied with research as it is now. My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt in detail with this matter, and I wish merely to add one or two points. I say at once that an essential function of the universities is the pursuit of knowledge not controlled or dominated by any private or corporate interests.
Without this academic freedom, learning will suffer irreparable harm, but the State, which endows research to such a large extent, should I think, guide the lines of broad policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said, it is that line of demarcation which causes us so much concern. The universities must administer, but the State must decide on the broad lines of policy.
We all have differing views about research, and which forms should have priority; and everyone has his own views as to which should come first. I remember an irate professor telling me that he had just been asked to sanction a research project into the sociological significance of the British Christmas card. Another research project I remember was an attempt to determine the correlation between the social class of families by the length of the bookshelves, which was supposed to give a quantitative index to reading habits in particularly selected homes. The proposition, I remember, was that the higher the social class, the more bookshelves there would be and therefore the wider reading habits, but I do not know if the £1,000 spent on that was justified. However, I think that we have to leave it to the universities to decide on the research which is undertaken, whether in sociology or another science. My only point is that although most research projects are sound, there are sometimes "fringe" projects by junior people which can be banal, and even worthless. The danger is perhaps greater is sociology than, say, medicine or science.
We know, of course, that research workers may have their quirks. I have never understood, for instance, why an archaelogist, in order to prove that he


is good, feels forced to demonstrate that his predecessor was bad. We have only to think of the archaeologists who write for the Sunday newspapers, and the mutual accusations of fraud over the most trivial issues.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Where so much money—public money—is involved, surely we should be able to criticise fairly forcibly this apparent waste of public money?

Dr. Thompson: That may be so, but I was trying to put my criticisms as ingeniously as I could while still at the same time upholding the autonomy of the universities.
An essential function of the universities is, as I have said, the pursuit of knowledge, not controlled or dominated by any private or corporate interest; but the reputation of a university is often founded on the efficiency of its research rather than on its standing as a teaching establishment. Research enters fundamentally into the life of a university, and some students, if a vital and vigorous climate of research prevails in their university, become imbued at a relatively early stage of their careers with the idea of becoming research workers themselves. Such a vigorous attitude to research can, therefore, have an impact on a university much wider than the benefits which accrue to the individual subject itself.
Admittedly, research and teaching go hand in hand, but it may be necessary sometimes to separate the functions. It may be necessary in certain subjects to establish research readerships or professorships with only nominal teaching duties attaching. I do not think that the status of research is sufficiently appreciated in this country, and it would help to make research, and especially research within the university, a real profession. It is the teaching jobs which are permanent and the hope of gaining a teaching job is often the goal of the research worker. But some very good researchers are, I think, shockingly bad teachers and it would help all concerned to keep them away from students. It would enable the research worker to dedicate himself to his subject, and it would protect the young from inefficient and careless instruction.
Research staffs are usually on limited, fixed, grants and do not sit on

the faculties or on the bodies which give them a voice in university government, and there is the tendency to treat them as the poor relations of the university teachers. I suggest that it is our job to see that good research workers, however, are given the status of university teachers. Where a trained research worker is also a good teacher, so much the better of course, but this does not always happen.
Research is an exacting occupation, and it must be pursued in suitable conditions. Universities do not always give research workers the same conditions of service as they give to teachers. There must also be adequate funds for expenses. It is not enough to provide maintenance for research workers. There must be an endowment of the work itself. Research workers must be re-imbursed for the expenses that they incur. I put in a plea to the Inland Revenue in this respect. It is difficult for anyone on a research scholarship ever to claim from the Inland Revenue expenses incurred in travel or whatever he does in pursuit of research.
If university researchers are to keep fresh minds, they must have freedom of choice and conduct. If the research worker's interests do not lie in the field of work favoured by the professor, he should not be coerced, directly or indirectly, into taking up any line of work against his will. A good professor realises this. He does not force a research worker into a field dominated or dictated by himself. Bad professors sometimes do. They coerce research workers into things which interest the professors rather than things which interest the research workers. This often results in poor work, and a good deal of mutual irritation and frustration.
The Association of University Teachers has made the very good suggestion that every university should have a research endowment fund, administered centrally by a fairly large committee, from which all departments and individuals could draw money. In other words, the suggestion is that people endowing the university should put the money into a central fund, and it would be up to the Committee administering the central fund to allocate money, rather than allowing the sponsoring bodies to dictate too closely the nature and conditions of the work.
Universities cannot be closed institutions in the matter of research. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made this point very well. There should be a much greater working with and co-operation with the technical colleges. There should be much greater facilities for exchange of staff between universities and other research institutions.
Student research is a slightly different problem. The first consideration for students, as distinct from post-graduates, is the need for mental training. It is not so much that they widen the area of knowledge of a subject in the way that senior researchers do, but that they receive training in the use of the mind. I do not think that very many undergraduates advance the frontiers of knowledge very much. They get mental training, although occasionally they stumble upon an idea. There must be very few professors and lecturers who have not occasionally filched an idea from a student which they have later claimed as their own. We are all only human.
We have had the opportunity tonight to ventilate a few points which are important. This opportunity has been provided by the movers of the Prayer, who have allowed Parliament to discuss it. For that reason, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have reason to be grateful.

Mr. Woodburn: With the permission of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharpies.]

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I am very glad that Scottish members have raised a subject which, in a way, is very similar to what I am raising concerning English education. I will not deal specifically with universities, but rather with the impact of science upon our general educational system. I recognise that the subject is a large one, and in the short time at my disposal obviously I can touch only upon certain aspects of it.
I am sorry that there has been no major debate on science and the responsibilities of the Minister for Science during this Session. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. I wish that Parliament, during the months which we have had at our disposal, had debated the responsibilities of the Minister for Science, and especially his rôle in relation to the Ministry of Education.
This year we are celebrating the tercentenary of the Royal Society. I make the point that Parliament should discuss the application of science to education, industry and agriculture, because if we are to make a challenge in this rapidly-developing world we must plan our science, in the sense that we must give priorities—and, of course, education plays an important part.
I shall not this evening go in detail into the scientific manpower situation. The figures have been quoted ad nauseam. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, however, that we must increase our scientific manpower, and that the key to that situation is undoubtedly the school itself. I have always argued with my hon. Friends who are interested in colonial development that only by making a scientific contribution can we develop the colonial territories, and end poverty and insecurity in the under-developed countries.
We must be able to send to those areas skilled technicians, scientists, engineers and the like who will, through their work, not only give advice but themselves play a major part in the development of those territories. If we are to challenge poverty all over the world and


exert leadership in colonial administration, in the end it will all depend upon our ability to supply fully-trained men and women with scientific training.
That brings me back to the problem of our schools, and of our whole educational system. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is also true of our own economy, our own industrial development, and our agriculture. I should like to see—although I do not wish the Minister to comment on this tonight—the full implementation of the De La Warr Report on higher education in agriculture.
First, the Parliamentary Secretary has some responsibility here. He has a connection with the administration of education. Secondly, he must be concerned with our attitude towards science in the educational system itself, and whilst, in the time now available, I cannot deal with this vast problem in detail, I want to deal with certain aspects as I see them.
I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are optimistic. In a speech to the Association of Local Education Committees in June, the Minister confirmed a previous announcement that there would be a further 8,000 training college places; that the Government would produce 3,000 of those places by 1964; would produce by 1965 a further 2,500, and that by 1966 there would be a further increase of 2,500 places. I accept that—I hope that it is right.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) the Minister, I know, has given very detailed programmes. He has given the extended programme for training colleges and has said how each college is to have an expanded number of places. I applaud that—I believe it to be a right policy—but I want to know whether the Minister is really satisfied that more science will be taught in the colleges. It is all very well to have an expanded teacher training programme, to have more training college places and to expand the growth of the training college system, but is the Minister really satisfied that in the training colleges we are recruiting enough science lecturers and senior mathematical lecturers to train our potential teachers? I hope the Parlia-

mentary Secretary will be able to answer because I believe it is important. It is the key.
I am not just concerned with people who are going to be trained in our training colleges, although they are important and form a major part of our educational system. But what about our graduate teachers in science? Is the Minister satisfied that we shall get from our universities over the next five or ten years an adequate supply of good graduate science men and women who will take a teacher's diploma and who will eventually go into the teaching profession? I am not sure.
I have here a quotation from that very excellent educational journal The Times Educational Supplement of Friday, 17th June. It is actually a quotation from a speech by Miss D. N. Glenday, who gave a presidential address to the Association of Headmistresses at its annual conference in London. Mentioning "Some of this year's facts", she said:
One school seven years without a senior mathematics mistress, another four years without a physics mistress, still another (a new one) without a chemistry mistress since its opening two years ago.
I could go on. That was a quotation from a person who holds a distinguished position in the educational world, a practising teacher, who knows this problem and she shows figures and quotes facts illustrating the position in our educational system, especially in our girls' schools.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have prejudices about the educational system. I believe that girls' schools, these single-sex institutions, are out of date. I am certain that the only way in which we could have girls taking more science and more engineering subjects would be to have what I have always advocated—mixed comprehensive schools, which I know are growing up in different parts of the country.
I am rather alarmed at the position of our girls' schools and particularly our girls' grammar schools, which do not have adequate facilities for training the girls in science and, indeed, in applied science itself. I know this is a difficult problem. It is a question of changing people's attitudes. Only a few weeks ago I conducted a personal survey of some of the children of hon. Members on this side of the House—very gifted


children who are at universities and, in the main, products of girls' schools. All of them have gone up to the university, not to study science but to study the arts. If in those schools there had been proper facilities, it may well have been that one of the children I have mentioned would have shown an aptitude for science, and applied science, and would have gone further to the university.
Let us be honest. In girls' schools generally in this country, when we consider the facilities for teaching science and, indeed, the laboratory facilities, the position is deplorable. I hope that the Minister will give me an answer and I trust that his influence and that of his Ministry can be brought to bear on what I consider to be a scandal. I have always argued that a girl, if she has ability, should go in for engineering. Why should she not? Why should we have this silly attitude that girls should be taught domestic science only or, if necessary, botany or biology? I should like to see more girl engineers.
This is happening in other countries. We in our education system must make a bigger challenge than we are making at present. I have argued that the comprehensive school is the answer, because there boys and girls grow up together and there are not the silly differences that there are in the single-sex institutions.
Another point concerns school equipment for the teaching of science. It is important from the point of view of economy to have standardised laboratory equipment. This is of great value to the teacher, yet no British manufacturer is in this field. We have to rely on a German firm, Leybolds of Cologne, to supply the grammar schools and on the Swedish firm. Norstedts, which supplies sets of scientific equipment for children. Has the Ministry thought about this? It is important. This is an aid to teaching which can save considerable sums of money and lead to more efficient teaching where it is not possible to supply immediately a full-scale laboratory.
I do not always agree with The Times Educational Supplement but it is a very fine paper which plays an important rôle. The Minister must have noted some of the excellent articles which it has published on the teaching of science.

An article which appeared in the issue of 13th May of this year deals with the teaching of science in grammar schools. It is concerned especially with modern physics at A level. The author, Mr. Armstrong of the College of Further Education, Welwyn Garden City writes:
Entering science teaching some four years ago after a period in industry the writer was surprised to find how little work on twentieth century physics was included in the A level physics papers of the various examining boards, and experience soon showed that it was difficult to find teaching time even for the small amount present …
I could quote further from the article which gives details of how in school after school—mainly grammar schools but also independent schools—there is not enough scientific equipment to teach modern physics. If the Ministry conducted its own independent survey it would confirm what is stated in The Times Educational Supplement.
A new attitude is needed. I know that the Ministry is trying. It produced a very fine pamphlet dealing with the teaching of science in secondary schools. The Crowther Report argues that science training should be given even to arts students in our schools. Why not? When we think of the atom and the application of nuclear energy to industry, nuclear physics can be exciting to the arts student. I believe that arts students should have some general science training and that science men should also have some general training in the humanities.
I hope therefore that the Ministry will seek to carry out the spirit of the Crowther Report and will try to "push" science much more than is done now. The position in the girls' school is deplorable. There is a great reservoir of scientific womanpower to be tapped in the girls' schools. After all, if a girl can work a sewing machine she can be interested in a lathe.
I think that the Minister will agree that the old dichotomy between arts and science is out-dated. It is a stupid thing which has grown up. It affects not only our schools but still, unfortunately, our universities. I know that in our universities to this day there are men and women who are supposed to be educated but who have never had any real general science education. This is wrong. Science should be for all. There are not two cultures—arts and science. They are


one. This silly dichotomy which is often seen even in the grammer schools where boys and girls at an early age have to specialise to the detriment of another study is repeated right up to the universities.
I trust that on some other occasion when the House returns after the Recess we shall have a major debate on the subject—about the place of science in our economy, about the responsibilities of the Ministry for Science and about that Ministry's relationship with the Ministry of Education. We have to face this challenge. After all, we are in a scientific revolution and our educational system as yet has not caught up. We are still living in the past.
I will again quote the words of one of our most distinguished scientists, Sir John Cockcroft. They are the words that he uttered in 1958 when he returned from Russia, and they were quoted in the Evening Standard of 28th November of that year. I know that was more specifically concerned with nuclear developments, but he made this statement:
At present Russian science and technology is not up to ours in all fields but in those given top priority it is already as good and soon will be better.
As I said earlier, I will not go into details about our scientific manpower position and also its relative position compared with the Soviet Union, Western Germany and the U.S.A. All I say modestly this evening is that the country must wake up quickly. We all say this. The Minister for Science says it, the Minister of Education says it, the Government say it and the Opposition say it. But in the end if we are to produce the scientists we do it only if we really have a drive right down in our schools, not only at the secondary stage but also in our primary schools. I have on many occasions in the House argued that science should be taught even in the primary schools. That is why it is important that we should have in the training colleges proper teaching of science to intending teachers.
I merely say in conclusion that here we face a major revolution. That is obvious to all of us. I merely ask near the end of a Parliamentary Session, when hardly any hon. Members are here, when Parliament is perhaps tired, that we should at least think about this, and per-

haps we shall be able to challenge the Departments by our activity and concern for the scientific manpower position and the place of science in our educational system.

11.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for having taken the opportunity of this debate to discuss a matter which, as he rightly says, is of the greatest possible importance. I do not suppose that at any time in the development of the educational system of any country there was a matter nearer to the heart of our problems, both educational and as a nation careful for its future, than this subject of how we are to provide ourselves with the scientific manpower that the conditions of the modern world will demand of us.
What I do not think we ought to accept lightly is the idea that everything is going wrong or that processes are being either delayed or neglected—

Mr. Peart: I did not.

Mr. Thompson: —which would not be true. I am glad that the hon. Member does not feel that the processes are all as bad as some people sometimes would have us believe.
Of course, we are short of teachers of most of the science subjects—and short of teachers of mathematics—both in the schools and, to a lesser extent, in the training colleges. Of course, it is true that we hope to turn out a larger number of qualified scientists and mathematicians and technologists from our school and colleges; I hope that the House will not believe that nothing is being done to try to remedy this defect and meet this need.
On the contrary, a very great deal is going on. The hon. Member referred to the expansion of the teacher training colleges by 8,000 places, but he and other hon. Members will be aware that that is the third stage of a much larger programme. The first stage was expansion by an additional 12,000 places. The second stage was the addition of 4,000 places. Added to that, there is now the third stage of 8,000 places and the sum total of these changes rather more than doubles the total teacher training resources of the country. The House will


be interested to note that a very large part of the expansion will be in increasing the number of teachers coming from the colleges who are qualified to teach science in the schools at the various levels which the schools will require.
Perhaps it will be convenient if at this stage I deal with what the hon. Member said about the primary schools. I do not disagree with what he said about the desirability of having primary school children become familiar with the language and processes of the subjects which they will probably meet in later stages of their educational life.
Whether or not it is called "science" in the primary schools is another matter. We must not intimidate young children, nor frighten them off subjects with which they may have to deal later. However, certainly the processes of the science subjects should be brought to their notice when they are very young. In many schools—those with which we are all familiar through our normal visits to schools—there are "biology corners" with all sorts of experimentation with plant and animal life. Probably we do not call such things science subjects and they may be taught by teachers who are not specially trained in science subjects and perhaps that is a defect, but the fact of the matter is that the child at a very young age is making his first nodding and perhaps distant acquaintance with the science subjects which will be important to him later on.
I agree with the hon. Member that there may be more which we can do by using the output of the expanded training colleges, which are themselves giving greater emphasis to science to help this process along, first in the primary schools and then in the secondary modern and grammar schools.
I should like the House to know that we regard this as of the greatest possible importance and priority and we hope that the expanded training colleges, with their lengthened courses and therefore greater opportunities for training science teachers, will give us a greater output of those who can take on this job.
In the main, the training colleges have three separate levels of teacher training for science courses. There is the ordinary curriculum course in which the ordinary teacher, who is not going to specialise as a science teacher, takes a certain amount of science in his stride

along with other subjects in the course of his experience at the training college. That is very important in every way. First, it qualifies the teacher to do a certain job of work of this kind in the schools, but it also helps to complete his training in the sense that he is much more likely to be a fully trained teacher with a broad approach to all the problems and all the subjects with which he will deal When he leaves training college.
The second type of course provides opportunities for a main study of one of the science subjects in the training college. Students take either one or two of their main subjects in science. They may go either to primary schools or to secondary modern schools when they have qualified from the training college. These same students may also take an additional one year supplementary course in a science subject, and from there on they are very well qualified to take science to quite a high level in either secondary modern schools or, in the case of good students, in a grammar school.
Then there is the advanced specialist course in one of the science subjects, in which the science subject itself constitutes the student's entire academic work. These students will be the mainstay of the science departments of the secondary modern schools, and in many cases then can render very useful service in some grammar schools. I think it is probably true to say that teachers trained in that way have an approach which is singularly useful in certain types of work in the schools, perhaps more useful than that of those trained as graduates.
The number of training college students in mathematics and science, taking the two together, for that is how we collect the figures, has increased from 600 in 1956–57 to over 1,100 in 1959–60, an increase of almost 100 per cent. The net increase in mathematics and science graduates in 1959—that is the increase in the total number of teachers available in one year—was 612. The comparable figure in 1958 was 303, which shows that the figure was doubled.
Not only are we increasing the size of the training colleges, but the universities themselves are expanding at a very rapid rate and to a very high figure. I have every reason to believe that we can get a large increase in the number of graduates who come forward to teach


from this vastly increased output from the universities. It is from there that we want to draw the great strength for the teaching of science subjects to a high level in our grammar schools. We have every reason to hope that we will get the figures we want. The plans that have been laid for the expansion of the universities mean that there will be an 80 per cent. increase in the number of science graduates leaving the universities in the period up to 1966.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of subjects which I am sorry I have not time to deal with in detail, but I want to refer briefly to science teaching for girls and, if I have time, to deal with his point about science equipment.
It is true that the shortage of science teachers is most severe in the case of

girls. It is not difficult to see the reason. Girls tend to lean towards non-scientific subjects and if, as is true, the schools at which they attend are deficient in their provision for science, for historical reasons, and if the teachers are not available in their schools to take the science subjects to a high level, this tendency is encouraged. But, here again, there is good reason to think that the trend is in the right direction—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.